Lords Sitting of 12 July 1993

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

Liverpool and Manchester Airports
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they favour improving the existing runway at Speke, Liverpool, rather than building a new runway on green belt land next to the existing runway at Manchester airport.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, it is for airport operators to consider the scale and timing of investment and to bring forward proposals in the light of their own commercial judgment.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reasonably helpful reply. But surely he can tell us what is the point of ripping up at least 3,000 yards of prime Cheshire countryside and smothering it with concrete when there is another runway only about a 15-minute drive away which is at the moment greatly underused. Is he aware that flight paths out of that Liverpool runway would be over the unpopulated mudflats of the Mersey estuary whereas flight paths out of Manchester airport are over the heavily populated areas of Wilmslow, Knutsford and Mobberley?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we await with anticipation any proposals that Manchester may wish to bring forward. But I think that my noble friend will understand that it is difficult for me to give him the kind of answers he would like because of the quasi judicial position of my right honourable friend the
2
Secretary of State. Any planning application that is submitted might very well come to my right honourable friend.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I accept what the Minister has just said—of course it would be difficult to decide between the two planning applications. However, in view of the importance of the issue to the North West and, if I may say so, to the nation's airport system, can the noble Earl give us an assurance that before the decision is taken a proper inquiry will be held into the whole situation between the Manchester and Liverpool airports, which I consider to be an entity, and that a report will be submitted to both Houses of Parliament before a final decision is taken?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the situation is that the normal planning procedures will prevail. A planning application might very well be submitted by Manchester. It will be up to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to decide whether or not to call it in.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, as someone who lives in the village of Mobberley, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mersey, I feel that I ought to declare an interest in this Question. Will my noble friend give an assurance that any application for a second runway will be bound to be subject to a full public inquiry and that the Government will take no steps whatever to prejudge any issue until they have heard the outcome of that inquiry?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am taking extreme care not to prejudge anything at the moment with regard to these two possible proposals. I can tell my noble friend that it will go through the proper planning procedure and it might well be that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State calls in these applications, which he has the power to do.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, does it not, however, make sense, as the noble Viscount has suggested, that someone should take a strategic view of air transport

3
in the North West? The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, lives in Mobberley. I used to live in Knutsford, so I have some knowledge of this area. Surely the Minister cannot believe that it makes sense to be considering building a new runway at Manchester when there is adequate capacity at Liverpool. It seems to me that someone needs to take the issue, bang a few heads together and not just leave it to market forces to work it out as they go along.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is the difference between the noble Lord and the Government on this issue. We do not believe it is right for the centre to dictate. It is for, on the one hand, Liverpool airport, which is privately owned, and, on the other hand, Manchester airport, which is local authority controlled, to decide what is best in their interests. Then the procedure will go through the normal planning route.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand the constraints under which my noble friend is operating but can he give an indication of how long all this will take? When will the planning application be considered; and how long is a public inquiry likely to take when and if that is called for?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have to take my noble friend a stage further back even from what he said, because we do not yet have a planning application from Manchester. Until that comes in it is very difficult to give the kind of answer to my noble friend that he would like.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, what we are asking for is a little bit more than the usual planning applications and the appeals that take place afterwards. We are asking that, in view of the regional interest—and there is a dickens of a lot of regional interest in this matter—it can be considered by both Houses of Parliament.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hear very clearly what the noble Lord says on this matter. There are the proper procedures which one has to go through.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister is in a difficult position at this point. Can he tell us when he expects the result of the exercise into the runway capacity in the South East to be published? Does the noble Earl agree that we are at the stage where air traffic is growing at an incredible rate and that leaving the issue to market forces is far too slack an approach? As my noble friend said, we must look at the matter in a strategic way. There is the question of Manchester airport increasing capacity from 10 million to perhaps 20 million passengers which will be about two-thirds that of the capacity of Heathrow. Is the Minister further aware that there is another runway available which is well under 30 miles away at Liverpool? Does he agree that from the national point of view this issue is much more important than purely commercial considerations?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am very grateful for the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord
4
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, because it seeks to underline the great success of the Government's regional airport policy over the past 14 years. It is very good for the travelling public that there has been such a dramatic increase in traffic to Manchester and the other regional airports. As regards airport capacity in the South East, there is to be another meeting in the near future. If agreement can be reached at that meeting I hope that publication of the RUCATSE report will follow fairly soon thereafter.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not obvious that either the planning procedures are in order, correct and adequate—in which case they ought not to be pre-empted—or they are not, in which case they ought to be altered?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right. We believe that the planning procedures are the right procedures. They have worked extremely well in the past and doubtless they will do so in the future.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that a great part of this problem arises from the fact that commercially Manchester airport has been eminently successful but that, unfortunately, Liverpool has not been so far? As the Minister said, is it not the case that Manchester airport is owned by the local authorities and that Liverpool airport has been privatised? Would not a shotgun marriage be to the detriment of a publicly-owned airport?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is extremely good news that the air services agreement that we have renegotiated with fellow member states around the world has provided benefit for Manchester through increased traffic and the 165 destinations which it now has.

London Hospitals
2.45 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the views of the British Medical Association on the future of the NHS and London's hospitals, discussions will be initiated between the Department of Health and the British Medical Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the Department of Health has regular discussions with the British Medical Association on a wide range of issues.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I had in mind the very special conference of the British Medical Association which has just taken place where Dr. Macara expressed grave anxiety about what has happened to several London hospitals. Will the Minister accept that he is completely uncertain about the future of our National Health Service and that he was supported by all members of the British Medical Association? Is she further aware that Dr. Macara's statement and the

5
BMA's massive support for its president have received support from the Royal College of Nursing, the Health Visitors—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that all these associations are devoted to our National Health Service and are at one in having grave anxiety about its future?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, clearly when there are major changes afoot people are concerned. But I have just read the report of the annual general meeting of the BMA which was published in the British Medical Journal. My reading of it is that there was support for the proposals for London subject to certain conditions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before noble Lords take the views of the BMA as holy writ, can my noble friend recall that the BMA opposed the setting up of the National Health Service in the 1940s?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I believe that is the case. The BMA opposed the reforms as it opposed GP fund-holding. But I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that at the last AGM it turned turtle and actually supported GP fund-holding.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the discussions which are taking place with the regional health authorities and all the other bodies in London are very detailed? Is she aware that I was present at one such meeting recently concerning Bart's Hospital where a decision was made that every aspect of local need should be assessed very carefully? Is she further aware that these matters are not being decided in haste?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Decisions taken on London hospitals will put patients first. They will also take into account the needs of staff. The London implementation group has already set up a clearing house for those who wish to look to their future, which perhaps may not be in London.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I certainly admit that the BMA, at the inception of the NHS, did not wish it to be born? Does the Minister agree that our nation was very lucky in having one of its greatest politicians responsible for creating the NHS and that that is why the name of Nye Bevan will remain long in the history of our country, together with that of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, who assisted?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that all professions are anxious about the future of the NHS, that the nation is alarmed and that family experiences support the associations' belief that there is grave danger of our National Health Service slowly but surely being destroyed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, Nye Bevan was before my time, but I know that he has a splendid reputation among Labour politicians.
We are anxious to get the decisions on London right. I know that many people—not least in your Lordships' House—are concerned about that and want to ensure that services in London are improved in the future. That is the Government's whole intention. As my noble friend has just said, we shall ensure that that happens and that careful consideration is given before decisions are made.

Iraq: UN Assistance to Kurds
2.50 p.m.
Lord Leigh asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of their policy of mediation, in conjunction with the United Nations, in the former Yugoslavia, why they do not seek to intervene in a similar fashion to prevent the destruction of the Kurdish population of Iraq.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the two situations require different responses. Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, Iraq is called upon to cease its repression of its civilian population. The air exclusion zone is in force north of the 36th parallel in support of the Resolution and to protect the people of Northern Iraq. We continue to take every opportunity to remind the Iraqi regime of its obligations.
Lord Leigh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Are the Government aware that over half of Saddam Hussein's armed forces are at present camped along the border with Kurdistan with the avowed intention of annihilating the whole Kurdish race, which is almost akin to genocide?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I should not care to estimate what proportion of Saddarn Hussein's forces are in the north of the country. We are well aware of the manoeuvres that take place in the north and that Iraq is under no illusions that the United Nations Security Council intends to ensure that Iraq fulfils its obligations. We certainly believe that flagrant defiance of the UN's authority across the board by Iraq may cause us to have to take further action, but we are in no way unaware of what is going on.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness has noticed the proposal that the blockade on Iraq should be lifted in respect of the Kurdish-controlled areas and whether she will seek to raise that matter in the Security Council. Has she also observed that there have recently been meetings at Foreign Minister level between Teheran, Damascus and Ankara with a view to concerting policies on the Kurds, and that those meetings have been followed by increased military activity against the Kurdish populations of Turkey and Iran as well as of Iraq? What steps do Her Majesty's Government think it

7
appropriate to take in the United Nations to prevent the complete destruction of the Kurds as a people in all those states?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think it very important that the discussions and negotiations which restarted only on 7th July to seek to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people, which the regime there could do by agreeing to implement Security Council Resolutions 706 and 712, should be a success. We cannot help on the matter which the noble Lord raised until we have some progress on Resolutions 706 and 712. However, we should never forget that the United Kingdom has contributed over £60 million-worth of humanitarian aid for Iraq, most of which has gone to the Kurds, and that we continue to help.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm, first, that the flights over Northern Iraq from Turkey will continue to protect the Kurds? Secondly, what is the latest situation on the aid for the Kurdish people which is going through Baghdad and is destined for Erbil and beyond but which is not reaching them? Thirdly, will she give further consideration to the 36th parallel being moved to the 35th parallel as the people who live between those two parallels are 90 per cent. Kurdish?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend to try to help the Kurdish people. As far as we are concerned, the flights from Turkey which cover the no-fly zone will continue. I gather that the aid that passes through Baghdad is not the major part of the aid, and that the major part still reaches the Kurdish people by other routes. A change from the 36th to the 35th parallel would require a further Resolution by the Security Council.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House precisely what military support is being provided by the allies to protect the safe havens in Northern Iraq? Does she accept that any further military action against Iraq—against Saddam Hussein—should be under the auspices of the UN Security Council?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in respect of the noble Baroness's second question, perhaps I may advise her that the ministerial trilateral of the United States, the United Kingdom and France which met in Tokyo on 8th July, concluded that we should not rule out military action if Iraq continues to defy the inspectors. I was glad to hear the noble Baroness's right honourable friend the Shadow Foreign Secretary say on the radio this morning that Her Majesty's Opposition support the view that was taken in Tokyo by the UK, the US and France. Perhaps I may advise her further that, yes, there is protection of the people in the north, but it is by UN guards. That is what was agreed by the Security Council.

Trunk Roads: Coning
2.55 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reduce the coning off of lengths of trunk roads when no work is in progress or in contemplation.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is already our policy to ensure that there is no unnecessary coning on trunk roads. We are continuing to pursue measures to minimise the inconvenience to motorists caused by lane closures.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that Answer and to know that it is policy to confine such restrictions to a minimum. However, does my noble friend realise that there are moments when motorists feel that his department suffers from an undue enthusiasm to protect a workforce which is not in sight or anywhere near the roadway concerned? Would he agree that it is important, as he has just said, to eliminate the inconvenience as far as possible?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will realise the sadness and distress that his Question will cause in the department where so much effort is being made to minimise the inconvenience to motorists and to reduce the amount of coning. If my noble friend finds himself in such a situation where work does not appear to be taking place, I hope that he will call the Cones Hotline on 276 3000.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, cannot the contractors who unnecessarily close great stretches of road be prosecuted for obstructing the highway?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if a highway needs repair it is probably wise, for the protection of those repairing it, to have it coned off.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, particularly during the rush hours on Friday and Sunday evenings, long stretches of the M.3 and M.4 are coned off with no work whatever being done on them? Will he look into the matter and ensure that the highway authorities follow the excellent sentiments which were expressed in his Answer and that they actually apply them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that every effort is made to apply them. There are, of course, often very good reasons why work might not be taking place when my noble friend is passing. I agree, however, that there is nothing more irritating in the rush hour on a Friday or Sunday evening than to find an area that is coned off where no work appears to be taking place. As I said, there are often very good reasons for that, as was found from the Hotline calls that have been received.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that there should be a great deal more work in progress or in contemplation on our trunk roads? Does he agree with the recent survey by the British

9
Road Federation which showed that 8,000 kilometres of roads are in urgent need of structural repair, and that a further 6,000 kilometres will wear out within the next four years? Is he aware that much of that is due to the fact that roads are not being maintained properly and/or were constructed too cheaply in the first place?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, I can answer only on trunk roads. The majority of roads are the responsibility of local authorities and I cannot answer for them in this Question. If the noble Lord would like to give me a specific instance I shall, of course, look into it, but he will be aware of the vast amount of taxpayers' money that is being spent not only on capital projects but also on maintenance.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with respect, my question is about trunk roads. It is not good enough (is it?) merely to say that local authorities have the responsibility for a large part of the work when they are starved of the resources to undertake it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, they are not starved of the financial resources. A great deal of money is allocated to them for road maintenance, as is right. It is a considerable improvement upon the previous situation.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, despite the good intentions, this is not an area of triumph for the social charter? In the countries of our European partners, essential roadworks are carried on at night only, when motorists are not incommoded; and in the United States large numbers of cones can be moved quickly from one site to another by a kind of side-winding vehicle. Does not that mean that we need to do more research and development into how we can reduce inconvenience and maintain the roads successfully?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we shall look at every opportunity to try to minimise, first, the amount of coning; secondly, the time that the cones are in place, and to try to improve traffic measures for motorists who are approaching coned-off areas. I can give my noble friend one example. For work such as the white markings on roads we now use mobile lane closures which we did not use previously. That has speeded up traffic flow enormously.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, may I point out to the Minister—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I referred inadvertently to local authorities being responsible for trunk roads, and that he did too? The question I asked earlier was: do the Government dismiss the observations of the British Road Federation about the state of the trunk roads—a matter to which the Question is addressed?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that I said that local authority roads were their responsibility and trunk roads were the responsibility of the department. There are, of course, areas where work needs to be done, but there is considerable expenditure at the moment to rectify those roads.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not clear that the Question—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not clear that the Question is about the coning of roads when repairs are not being carried out and not about the inadequacy of repairs which are not coned?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the babble of enthusiasm that followed his second supplementary reply, his reference to a fascinating body about which I had not heard before, called the Cones Hotline, was largely lost. Will he repeat the telephone number and, at the same time, tell us what it is for?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will take careful note. The Cones Hotline is 071 276 3000. It was set up under the Citizen's Charter so that someone like my noble friend who is aggrieved that an area of road is coned off while no work is taking place can get straight on to the department which would investigate the matter. There have been some 70 calls. Of those, 68 replies were that there was good reason for the cones to be where they were. There were two other cases. In one, the sub-contractor had not removed the cones as it should have done. Another answer was that a greater length was coned off than was necessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that all the remaining graffiti that say "Marples must go" and "Peyton must go" have been removed from our motorways?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have not seen any recently on cones.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that since the system of lane rental was introduced a few years ago there has been a considerable improvement in the speed at which essential repairs and maintenance are carried out? It is certainly better than some 20 years ago. Will he further assure the House that should the 48-hour working week be imposed upon us, we shall not have to stop the current procedure of work going on 24 hours a day for seven days a week, which one sees at the moment?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for asking about lane closures. It was an initiative of my late noble friend Lord Ridley who introduced the measure. It has led to the speeding up of roadworks by some 30 per cent. So my noble friend

11
Lord Peyton will realise that there has been a considerable improvement since the day when he was Minister of Transport because there are now fewer cones in place for a shorter time.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, so I should hope! That was a long time ago. Is my noble friend aware that the last thing I should ever wish to do would be to cause even a ripple of distress within the ranks of a government department? The maximum I wish to achieve by the Question is to point out how those who are responsible can earn for themselves a measure of popularity.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sure that there will be many people in the department who are consoled by my noble friend's latest question. Let me. assure him that considerable work is continuing to be put into this matter to try to achieve a resolution, but I am sure that he is a happier man than he was 30 years ago.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Economic Summit in Tokyo.
It may be for the convenience of the House to know that the Report stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during that adjournment two food protection orders followed by two orders relating to criminal justice and drug trafficking will be taken.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I were to remind your Lordships of the rules which apply to proceedings on Report. The rules are set out in full in pages 109–10 of the Companion to the Standing Orders. Perhaps I could simply draw your Lordships' attention to three small points.
First, on Report no Lord may speak more than once to an amendment, except the mover of the amendment or, with leave, a Lord wishing to explain a part of his speech, or a Minister; secondly, arguments fully deployed in Committee should not be repeated at length on Report; and, thirdly, save for short questions for elucidation, only the mover of an amendment should speak after the Minister. The one exception to that rule is where a Minister wishes to speak early, for instance, in the event that the Minister wished to indicate his or her acceptance of an amendment.

Allied Irish Banks Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Road Traffic (Driving Instruction by Disabled Persons) Bill
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord McColl of Dulwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
3.9 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Treaty on European Union]:
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after ("II") insert ("except Article 3(e)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for returning to the subject of agriculture and the CAP. The feeling of the Committee seemed to be unanimously in favour of reforming the CAP. I wish to make it clear that I am aware that the CAP as such is not referred to in the treaty, but Article 3(e) of Title II refers to:
"a common policy in the sphere of agriculture and fisheries".
Whether lower case or upper case, I believe that the feeling of the Committee was—I believe that my noble friend Lord Ullswater on the Front Bench shared the view—that the agricultural policy, or a policy common to agriculture, needed reforming. The question is: how?
The point was made in Committee that Her Majesty's Government missed a golden opportunity to insist upon CAP reform in return for accepting EMU. If we accept for the sake of argument that it is now too late to go back over the Maastricht negotiations, it is important to ensure, nonetheless, that the same opportunity is not missed again either when the EC wants the UK to pay more money or when the treaty is next revised, possibly in 1996.
The amendment would ensure that the matter is not left to the discretion of the Executive and that Parliament has some control over what happens. I should have liked to have tabled a different amendment which focused on what I believed was required but I was told that the wording was out of order. However, in order to enlighten your Lordships, perhaps I may read out what it stated. There were only three short clauses. Clause 1 would have stated:
"Before 31st June 1995 Her Majesty's Government will lay before both Houses of Parliament a Command Paper setting out a draft of proposals to be submitted to the Council pursuant to Article N of the Treaty of European Union".
Clause 2 would have stated:

13
"The said command paper will include the policy of Her Majesty's Government on matters requiring renegotiation, which will include reform of a common agriculture policy".
Clause 3 would have stated:
"Her Majesty's Government will thereafter make such submission to the Council as either House of Parliament may by resolution direct".
That provision would have given the Government the necessary ammunition or authority to enforce real reform. During Committee the Government stated—
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not sure whether my noble friend is addressing the amendment which he was told was out of order and therefore could not be tabled (in which case he is probably out of order in speaking to it), or whether he is addressing the amendment on the Marshalled List which we are discussing.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, yes, I am; and I am using it by way of illustration to show—
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend said, "Yes, I am", but he did not say what he was doing. Is he addressing the amendment which was out of order or the amendment which is in order?
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am addressing the amendment which is tabled in my name and which deals with the CAP.
There was a belief that reforms had been carried out last year by Mr. MacSharry and that those reforms should be given a chance to operate. However, I suggest that the reforms are like those of a cigarette smoker who decides to reform by taking up cigar smoking; they look like being even more expensive than the original habit. At present, 12 million acres of arable land are subject to set-aside and lie fallow. The beef subsidy system, which has been in operation for only a few months, is already a shambles. We have a control system for agriculture which is of extraordinary complexity and which will add enormously to the huge costs and bureaucracy of the common agriculture policy.
But the CAP is indeed a soft target. I know that the House is well aware of its shortcomings and I shall not go on about them. The question is: what can the Government do about it, if anything? How will we be able to influence decisions taken in the Council of Ministers at the behest of the Commission? We are now but one vote among 12. What other countries share our wish to reduce the excesses of the CAP? I suggest that there are few, if any. Not France, whose contribution has been to hold the GATT talks to ransom by stating that unless set-aside payments to European farmers are increased, it will not sign any GATT agreement. I may say that those increases are not minor; they are up to 50 per cent. And not Spain, Italy or Ireland, all of whom are large net recipients of the CAP billions.
Reform is demanded both outside and inside farming. It was useful and instructive to learn recently that a former president of the National Farmers' Union, Sir Simon Gourlay, has come down firmly in favour of root and branch reform of the CAP. It is a matter which needs to be seriously addressed. If we
14
want genuine reform and if we want to return to a saner system of agriculture support which is sustainable in the light of cold economic reality, we must place the right weapons in the Government's hands to enable them to carry out such reforms and to negotiate effectively in the Council of Ministers on behalf of the farmer, the taxpayer and the consumer.
As one of the three net contributors to the Community budget we are in a strong position to argue for reform of the CAP or of a common policy in the sphere of agriculture. I believe that it would be entirely appropriate and correct for Parliament to give the Government a direction about the negotiating stance that they should take in 1996. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Ullswater replied to this question in Committee, I found his answer completely and utterly unconvincing. I believe that I referred to it as auto-pilot Euro-gunge, which I believed it to be. There seems to be no awareness among Members on the Treasury Bench of the need for reform of the CAP. The British taxpayer is subsidising me to grow wheat. I do not mind being sulbsidised; in fact, I love being subsidised because the more subsidy that people can shovel into my back pocket, the happier I shall be. But. I cannot in all honesty stand and argue the morality of subsidising me to grow weeds. It is a silly thing to do We are subsidising people to grow weeds when there is a £50,000 million public sector debt. Can anyone in their right mind think of anything sillier? I cannot.
Furthermore, we impose an extra £1,000 per year on each family of four or on each person in those four—I cannot remember—as a result of overblown food subsidies. We have to stop that. Furthermore, I have already pointed out my great and good friend Odessa. Once the Russians cease to be grain importers—which they will as night follows day—and become grain exporters, the situation will become worse.
Unless and until that fact is received in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the Treasury and by the bureaucrats in Brussels, there will be a disaster. I am sorry to say that in answering the previous debate, my noble friend Lord Ullswater appeared to have no conception—or, even worse, the Government had no conception—of the horror which is about to overtake us. Anything which can be used to persuade the Government to try to reform and to change this ridiculous policy is to the good. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I listened to and read with great interest the debate in Committee on this subject, although I did not take part in it. I was interested to note that the Government and everyone else said, "You should not have a vote on this. Indeed, you should not have put this amendment down. We all agree that the common agricultural policy is a mess and a disgrace, and we should all like to do something about it. But you cannot do it in this Bill. You are entitled only to take out the provisions in Article 3a dealing with agriculture; you are not allowed to make propositions which will improve that article and

15
improve agriculture". We were told that we were not entitled to do anything other than take out from the treaty an agricultural policy.
That is senseless. It is unfortunate that Parliament cannot have a point of view and suggest that to the Government without being told that it will mess up the treaty. But the Government could have done that, could they not? When they renegotiated the treaty and when they were dealing with the Maastricht Treaty, they could have said to our partners, "We shall not agree to the treaty unless you give an absolute and firm undertaking that the common agricultural policy will be altered and reformed very radically indeed". When the Government were negotiating the treaty, they had the power to do something radical about the policy and to threaten their partners, as they are so often threatening us, with a failure to agree the treaty unless something radical was done.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, mentioned the article which he saw in The Times last Monday, 5th July, of an interview with Sir Simon Gourlay, the former secretary of the National Farmers' Union. However, the noble Lord was very modest and did not quote from the article. I intend to quote from it because the quotes are very good indeed. For those noble Lords who did not read The Times last Monday, perhaps I may read from that article. The headline is:
"Farmers' friend condemns insanity of EC subsidies".
That is even further than I would go. The article goes on:
"Europe's farmers must be weaned from their addiction to public handouts if they are to have a secure future, according to Sir Simon Gourlay, former president of the National Farmers' Union.
Those unable to face life without a regular subsidy 'fix' should be encouraged to leave farming by a generously funded redundancy scheme.
Interviewed on his 850-acre cattle, sheep and cereal farm straddling the Powys-Herefordshire border near Knighton, Sir Simon admitted that he had once defended the kind of farm support he now believes must be abolished. The 'terminal insanity' of last year's much-trumpeted reform of the European Community's Common Agriculture Policy, he said, had hardened a growing conviction that nothing would be achieved by tinkering with the existing system".
Therefore, Sir Simon is on our side. He said that it is no good tinkering with the system; it should be abolished. Those who criticise us and criticise the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, for tabling this amendment are quarrelling with an expert.
I hope that we shall hear no more about the futility of our tabling such an amendment for discussion. I am only sorry that we are unable to discuss the matter in fuller depth in an effort to persuade Her Majesty's Government that they should take a much tougher line on this subject which wastes tens of billions of pounds every year and puts up the food costs for the people of this country.
I hope that after the debates, not only in this House but also in another place, when the Government are negotiating further treaties as no doubt they will—I hope that they will not, but no doubt they will do—they will take a much stronger line to ensure that anything which they may wish to give will be conditioned by a severe reform of the common agricultural policy.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord has just said. He may remember that your Lordships' Sub-Committee D of the European Communities Committee produced a report some months ago which recommended precisely what Sir Simon Gourlay has now said. That is very encouraging. The sub-committee recommended that farmers might receive a bond were they to stop farming. Therefore, that is not news to your Lordships' House.
The point in the context of the debate is that the Maastricht Treaty has nothing to do with the CAP and is unrelated to it. In the context of the Bill, the question is whether the best way to sort out the CAP is by staying in the kitchen or by getting out, which is what we should do were we not to ratify the treaty.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I should like to give your Lordships a slightly different view on the common agricultural policy; namely, that it is seen by many people in the land as being a back-door nationalisation of our farming interests. That is against the policies and philosophy of the party on whose side I sit and I warn the party and the Government that they are losing votes at a great rate in the countryside.
Why is it a nationalisation of our farming interests? The reason is that we no longer have control over what we grow, the price that we obtain for it, our incomes or how we manage the land. The loss of labour on the land is being rapidly made up by an increase in civil servants. I believe that the Danes now have the same number of civil servants in their agriculture ministry as they have farmers.
If nothing is done about it, the Conservative support in the country will fail. We have seen the treaty go through. We know how it all operates. We see the negotiations taking place. Why have not the Government used their negotiating position in the treaty to obtain a better situation as regards the common agricultural policy? I feel that if your Lordships were to send a message back to another place, it would put some mettle into the Government and something might at last happen. I support the amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as a number of noble Lords have said, the problem with the amendment is that it removes the words "a common agricultural policy" from the treaty. Of course, if it had said that it would remove the common agricultural policy as presently constituted, I am sure there would be a unanimous vote in its favour. But that cannot be done under the terms and the wording of the treaty.
A number of the arguments on the amendment are recycled from Committee stage. I can agree with all the criticisms of the common agricultural policy. I have spent half my professional life attempting to grapple with its nonsenses. I am always amazed that a group of supposedly intelligent politicians and officials could have produced a policy which fails the farmer, the taxpayer and consumer, damages the environment and harms the third world. We know that its bureaucratic complexities lead to endemic fraud which is estimated at some £6 billion per annum.

17
In passing I should say on fraud that we know that we have all had to go through the agonies of the integrated administration control system—IACS. We have had to fill in forms noting every animal, and every crop has had to be allocated to two decimal places of a hectare. We are told by the Government that we must do that to control public spending and because of the fear of fraud. However, a number of your Lordships will remember that from the late 1940s until the mid-1970s we had a system of agricultural support in this country. I refer not to the value of the system but to its administration. We had a barley subsidy which was based on acreage and a wheat subsidy which was based on tonnage. There were three kinds of fat stock subsidies—pigs, cattle and sheep. There was a calf subsidy. There was a grassland subsidy, a lime subsidy and a whole range of hill livestock subsidies. That was all managed efficiently, effectively and cheaply with hardly any fraud and with none of the nonsenses to which we have been exposed-under the IACS.
Of course the Government are right to say that we need IACS to prevent fraud. But we are not talking about fraud in the United Kingdom; we are talking about fraud in other member states. Therefore, I agree with all the criticisms made of the CAP.
However, before the Government become too excited about my support, I remind the Minister that during the general election of 1970, when I was a parliamentary candidate, I remember well that the Heath Government, when they were returned to power, were committed to ending the system of deficiency payments and replacing them with import levies, whether or not we entered the common market. That is the system to which we have moved, with all its problems. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will not pretend that all the problems that have arisen through that shift as regards the system were due entirely to the common agricultural policy because that was the policy of the Heath Government, whether or not we entered the common market. I can well remember on a number of visits to Brussels in the 1970s being told that to have a system of deficiency payments to support European agriculture was absolutely impossible and it was completely outside all the terms of the Treaty of Rome. But now, of course, with the MacSharry reforms we have a system of deficiency payments.
However, there is something to be said in favour of the MacSharry reforms. We heard much in Committee, especially from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, about the Franco-German conspiracy. The noble Lord fastened on to a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in the debate about the "Franco-German conspiracy" as he defined it. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in his previous existence would have had nothing to do with conspiracies, but he fastened on to the latter as the central weakness of the common agricultural policy which was effectively the agreement reached in the mid-50s whereby the Germans were prepared to accept high farm prices for the French in order to have a market for their industrial exports. They were correct in that. Nevertheless, the MacSharry reforms
18
will eventually bring all that to an end. Their intention—however ineffective they prove to be—is to bring our farm prices towards world prices and to make up the difference with a system of deficiency payments.
I should like to deal with just a few of the points that have been raised in the debate. We could all multiply examples of the absurdities of the common agricultural policy. The noble Lord who moved the amendment referred to the set-aside system. We all know that, as part of the French agreement to the oilseed deal in GATT, they insisted on a 25 per cent. increase in the compensation for set-aside. Therefore, as a result, every arable farmer who sets land aside in this country will receive something of the order of £24 per acre. That is very welcome news for the farmers, but of course it is completely barmy.
I support my noble friend Lord Stoddart who asked—and it will be interesting to hear the Minister's response—why the Government missed the negotiating chance that they had in Maastricht to try to insist on a fundamental reform of the CAP. I wonder what arguments were put forward that convinced the Government that they should not use that as a bargaining counter. They claim success in all the other negotiations in Maastricht as regards the various opt-outs, so why did they not use their chance during negotiations to insist upon a fundamental reform of the CAP?
Mention was made of the article in The Times by Sir Simon Gourlay, who is a former president of the National Farmers' Union and someone who I know well, and of the arguments produced by Sub-Committee D, of which I was a member. If we intend through a bond or any other system to help the European farmer out of farming we must be clear about the social effects involved. It will mean more and larger farms and fewer people on the land. We must consider most carefully the social effects if we attempt to remove farmers from European farming.
In conclusion, it is essential that a great trading bloc like the European Community operating a single market should have a common policy for agriculture to deal with its responsibilities in the wider world, as regards its trade in agriculture and food products. It must also ensure that there is, to coin a phrase, a level playing field between the European farmers when they compete with one another. There must be a common agricultural policy—and I emphasise that that is spelt with a small "c", a small "a" and a small "p". Unfortunately, the amendment does not deal with the situation. As all speakers have made clear, it is directed at the common agricultural policy (the CAP) that we now have and which, as we all know; is completely unacceptable. Therefore, in those terms, if the noble Lord was minded to divide the House, I would regretfully have to advise my colleagues to reject the amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I shall be brief at this stage in order to save time. It has been said in the course of the debate that the common agricultural policy did not feature in the Maastricht Treaty and that, therefore, any reference to it is inappropriate. I

19
am sure the noble Baroness will agree that the effects of the common agricultural policy, especially so far as concerns Britain's net contributions to the Community, present an all-pervasive element that certainly has considerable financial consequences and, indeed, has some effect on the budget, which will be the subject of a later amendment that I hope to introduce.
I hope that the Minister can confirm the following. When a meeting of the agriculture council takes place, is it true that the representative from the Ministry of Agriculture is accompanied by a representative of the Treasury? When the various pricing, intervention pricing and other arrangements are agreed on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, with the Minister himself speaking on behalf of the Government, is the Treasury there and is its concurrence required before the British representative arrives at an agreement? The reason I ask those questions is that there are stories which abound in Brussels. Some of them are true, although that is not always the case. However, there is a story, which is not entirely improbable, that when the price provisions of the agriculture council are discussed, the Treasury representative suddenly disappears and returns home in order to avoid the responsibility for any settlement that is reached.
As I said, that story may or may not be true. The Minister will certainly be able to disabuse me. However, the main question has some importance. I say that because the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury—I believe that Sir John Cope now has the job—carry a responsibility for monitoring very carefully the whole of the European budget, including agricultural expenditure. It would be nice to know whether there is a degree of enthusiasm and interest by the Treasury in the Commission's budget in order to ensure that the budgetary expense is kept within limits that are wholeheartedly agreed to by all sections of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, although the amendment appears to be imperfect for our purpose, I am anxious to support it. I do so because I am dissatisfied with a situation where, in every part of the House, there is almost universal agreement that the CAP is a monstrosity and yet we seem to fail to make any significant inroads into it. I take the amendment to be a form of protest; that is, a substitute for perhaps more violent action to indicate displeasure and dissatisfaction.
I am sorry to note that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is not present in the Chamber today. I always treasure the rare episodes of agreement between us when he speaks as a professional economist rather than as an amateur politician. The other day I heard him denounce the common agricultural policy in terms that rejoiced my heart. Similarly, I found nothing to object to in what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said—except, that is, in the sense that I should have preferred a touch more indignation in his description of the outrageous system.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, repeated the estimate of £1,000 per family of four as being the full cost of the CAP. That implies a cost to the nation in the order of
20
£10 billion, £12 billion or perhaps £15 billion a year. However, it does not capture the full cost; it represents the direct costs and those can be easily measured. Frequently in economics the art is to penetrate beyond the direct, measurable macro cost to see what the longer term consequences of the policy may be.
As the noble Lord said, the guaranteeing of prices raises the cost of basic foodstuffs to all of the people in this land. I should preface this by saying the intention, and the direct visible effect of the CAP system, is to raise the incomes of farmers. It is intended to raise the income of small farmers above all but of course it disproportionately raises the income of large farmers. That is the visible, direct effect of this massive expenditure. The indirect, hidden consequences include, as I have said, the raising of prices for every family in the land. That is the direct effect of the guaranteed prices. The subsidies that we pay to farmers to add to their incomes raise the costs which filter through and become lodged in the production costs of our industry.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would allow me to intervene for one minute. He said the fundamental effect of the CAP was to raise the cost of food to the British public. Does he also agree that since we have been members of the European Community there has been no shortage of food whatsoever throughout this country, and indeed throughout the whole of the European Community, and that certainly does not apply to practically any other part of the world?
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I always admire the spirit with which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, finds ways to defend even the less defensible aspects of this conspiracy against the public good. To say there is no shortage of food and that that is a bonus of this whole system is preposterous. There is a vast surplus of food that we have difficulty in getting rid of. Indeed we dump it on world markets and thoroughly distort the allocation of resources around the whole world. We undermine the markets for other countries that depend completely on producing foodstuffs and supplying them cheaply. What is meant by no food shortage? I give no marks at all to the common agricultural policy for piling up these surpluses, which are an additional source of cost because we pay dear for them in Europe and we sell them cheap or give them away around the world.
My argument is that the often less obvious consequences of the CAP are far more damaging than we allow. It distorts the use of resources and it burdens our costs. It reduces the competitiveness of our products. We possibly could save on average £1,000 per family of four, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said. That would imply that taxes, or dare I say even wages, might be that much lower without reducing our living standards. Our products would therefore be more attractive around the world. I do not think for a moment it is the least bit fanciful or exaggerated to say that this system is one of the contributory factors to the high level of unemployment which we all deplore. We all disapprove of the system. I am not charging anybody with defending it but I am asking

21
what measures we can take, and the Government can take, to indicate their displeasure, impatience and indignation that this system should continue for diminishing benefit at increasing cost. How does the Minister manage to sleep peacefully in bed at night when she has responsibility for this system continuing one day longer than it needs to?
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, one does not feel after more than 19 years in Parliament that one is about to do something for the first time, except when one's noble friend is indisposed. This is the first agricultural debate I have replied to in more than 19 years in Parliament. I shall seek to answer the questions that have been posed and to put a coherent case as to why I do not believe that my noble friend's amendment is correct for the reasons that have been stated by a number of noble Lords. My noble friend was absolutely right when he said he understood that nothing was being changed in the sphere of agriculture and fisheries by the Maastricht Treaty. But that does not mean that no action is being taken. It is right that I should address that point as well as seeking to answer your Lordships' questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, has just commented upon the common agricultural policy and has mentioned his great disapproval of it. I do not disagree with him that there needs to be further reform of the common agricultural policy. However, I do not disagree either with my noble friend Lady Elles, who reminded us that the CAP was formulated in a period following the Second World War. Lest we forget, in those days farming was exceedingly depressed and people were still hungry in this country and in other parts of what is now the European Community. In those terms, the CAP was an attempt by others to try to put right the failure to have sufficient food within the region.
I accept that much needs to be done, and that is why we have sought to gain reforms to the common agricultural policy. I believe it is legitimate for the Community to have a common agricultural policy because all member states, as one noble Lord reminded us, have had support policies for agriculture and therefore a common policy is a prerequisite for free trade in agricultural products. However, it is the detailed provisions of the CAP, not the existence of a common policy itself, which have created the problems in Community agriculture. No one has been more assiduous in pointing out the problems of the common agricultural policy than the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I shall return to his comment in just one moment.
It is the detail of the CAP which Her Majesty's Government will continue to work at to reform it still further. However those details are no part of the EC treaty and can be changed, thank goodness, without treaty amendments. Therefore we shall not have to wait several years more to make changes in the CAP should the reforms that we are looking for come about.
My noble friend who proposed this amendment said the MacSharry reforms were insufficient. I agree
22
with him and I hope that what I have just said indicates that we shall not just stop with the CAP reforms of 1992. However, 1 believe they represent a significant shift in direction of the CAP by switching support from the end product to the producer; in other words, creating greater market orientation. Prices will be significantly cut and the CAP will move closer to world prices. I believe, too, that that will ease international trade tensions. That is why we should go along with these reforms.
There is a further good reason for doing so—I know the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, supports this—and that is that the reforms of 1992 will, when fully implemented, make the agricultural support system more transparent. That is something the noble Lord has long wanted to see. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The noble Baroness indicated that the common agricultural policy could be fundamentally changed without amending the Treaty of Rome. Surely that is not the case. The whole character of the common agricultural policy and its fundamentals are laid down in Articles 35 to 47 of the treaty. Surely the noble Baroness will agree that they would need to be changed for there to be any really fundamental shift in the whole of the common agricultural policy.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it depends entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, means by fundamental shift. I was explaining some moments ago that the details which have been spoken about in this debate, and in the debate in Committee, are no part of the treaty. The details can certainly be changed without treaty amendment. If the whole system of support were to be totally turned on its head—I suspect that is not likely to happen in the way the noble Lord would like—perhaps he is right. However, he is certainly not right in relation to the details of the common agricultural policy.
I have already said that the Government do not believe that the reform yet goes far enough. We know, for instance, that some commodities are not covered by the 1992 reforms. It is important that other commodities such as sugar, wine, olive oil, fruit arid vegetables are also reformed. We are working on that and we shall continue to do so until we have a very much better agricultural policy than we have now.
One consequence of CAP reform will be an increase in the budgetary cost of the CAP, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned. However, that will be more than offset by the reduced burden on consumers. Overall, the cost of the CAP to consumers and taxpayers will be lower.
Perhaps at this point I may take up the comments made by my noble friend Lord Onslow who claimed that the OECD estimated the cost to the consumer to be £1,000 per person per annum. Perhaps I may point out to my noble friend, and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that that OECD estimate takes no account of the effect on world prices if the CAP and other support measures did not exist. It is likely that

23
without support policies production would decline and world prices would rise. That is certainly true in many areas.
At the time of the 1992 reforms it was estimated that after full implementation of the package the savings to EC consumers would be of the order of £8 billion. The UK receipts from the CAP are set to increase from 7 per cent. to 9 per cent. That brings it much closer to our share of agricultural production, which is approximately 9.2 per cent. by value.
In the debate my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke mentioned the possible complications of the French position in consideration of the GATT agreement. Perhaps I may tell him—and there may be more discussion of the matter later today in connection with the Statement—that the French welcomed the progress reported by the Quad at Tokyo. I believe that when the Geneva negotiations are concluded not only will the Commission bring the results to the Council, but member states will already have had a chance to give their views to one another. Member states will then have to approve a global and balanced conclusion of the round. I believe that under those circumstances it would be exceedingly difficult for any member state to hold out against a deal which offers enormous benefits to the developed and the developing world alike. I sincerely hope that the course on which Sir Leon Brittan has set us to resolve the problems of the GATT will be successfully concluded.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Surely the agreement of the French was in the Council of Agriculture Ministers and related to the problems of the oilseeds deal under the GATT oilseeds panel. It had nothing to do with the deal in Geneva. The French price for agreeing to the oilseeds deal in the GATT panel was a 25 per cent. increase in the compensation for set-aside, which is worth about £24 an acre to every farmer in this country who sets land aside. That is outside the Tokyo and GATT negotiations at present.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that that is outside the Geneva discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, argued that set-aside was wrong. I shall come to that point in a moment. To answer my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, I do not believe that the French will take lightly the agreement which has so far been reached. That was the point that my noble friend made rather than the 25 per cent. increase which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has just mentioned.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that set-aside is not a policy which the UK Government favour, but it is important that surplus EC grain production, which is very expensive to dispose of and disrupts world markets, particularly in the developing world, is reduced. That is why the United Kingdom has always argued that the price mechanism is the most effective way to reduce production and why set-aside is linked to 30 per cent. price cuts for cereals. Obviously, price cuts take time
24
to have an effect on production. In this case set-aside can act more quickly. However, nobody expects set-aside to continue for ever and a day. One hopes that the price mechanism will come into play as quickly as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and another noble Lord mentioned the article in The Times by Sir Simon Gourlay, a past president of the NFU. I have already mentioned that the Government accept that further reform is still needed. That is why we continue to argue for it. But as my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said, Sir Simon's comments are helpful. We shall certainly consider the implications of his remarks in order to make progress on the very reforms which we wish to see achieved.
I understand that the amendment was put down for a very sensible and understandable reason. I do not quibble one iota with my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke on that. But I have to say to him that, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, indicated, it does not do what he seeks to do; namely, to achieve reform of the common agricultural policy. I have to advise your Lordships, as my noble friend Lord Ullswater did in relation to a similar amendment which we discussed during the Committee stage on 24th June, that if my noble friend were to press the amendment I would have to urge your Lordships to reject it.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Chalker for her full and detailed reply, particularly since it is 19 years since she last answered questions on agriculture. However, I remain less than impressed by the hope that the present agricultural policy will prove less costly than the one which obtained before the reforms.
I very much hope that the feelings expressed on all sides of this House that reform of agricultural policy is needed will have come across to the Government Benches loud and clear. That cannot be achieved through changing details because I do not believe that tinkering with details will alter agricultural policy significantly. Root and branch reform is needed. I hope that those who have spoken about agricultural policy both in this House and outside the Chamber will have got the message across to the Government that we need some reform, and sooner rather than later.
At this stage I do not propose to press the matter to a Division. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Economic Summit, Tokyo
3.57 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 Economic Summit on 7th–9th July. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement on the Economic Summit in Tokyo and the Group of Seven meeting with President Yeltsin.

25
I attended the summit with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. During the three days I also had bilateral meetings with our host, Prime Minister Miyazawa, and with the Presidents of the United States and Russia and the Prime Minister of Canada.
"The summit produced significant achievements. These are set out in the economic and political declarations which I have placed in the Library of the House.
"Before the Tokyo summit, the GATT talks had been stalled for several months. The summit acted as a catalyst. The United States, Japan and the European Community negotiated a report on access to each other's markets which has led to the resumption of GATT negotiations in Geneva.
"The report offers large benefits to British industry. In six of the eight categories where tariffs are to be abolished entirely, Britain is a net exporter. These include pharmaceutical and construction equipment. Japan's agreement to abolish all the import duty on whisky will give a welcome boost to sales in a market which is already worth over £170 million a year to Scotland. Many other particularly high tariffs faced by British exporters will be cut by 50 per cent. or more. These include punitive United States tariffs on ceramics, glassware and high quality textiles. In other categories of manufactured goods, there was agreement to cut as many tariffs as possible by a third, or to harmonise them at low levels.
"The Uruguay Round is far wider in scope than previous multilateral trade negotiations. It still has a long way to go. But the Tokyo meetings have injected much-needed momentum and real progress on substantive issues—action as well as words—and the worldwide prospect of more trade and more jobs, especially for a trading nation like the British. With low interest rates and firm control of costs, British industry is exceptionally well placed to benefit from a successful GATT round.
"Madam Speaker, each summit country, except Japan, is facing a serious fiscal problem. With the exception of the UK, the European participants are not expecting economic growth this year. Against this background, the Summit identified barriers to growth which have developed in much of the industrialised world.
"As at the European Community's Copenhagen Council, I found a new willingness among our partners to address some of the hard lessons which we learnt in the United Kingdom during the recession. Three points in particular were generally accepted: that there is a long term upward structural trend in unemployment in addition to the cyclical effect of the recession; that, on present forecasts, the cost of social provisions is likely to exceed the capacity to meet them in all the main industrial economies; and that deregulation and labour market flexibility are vital to get unemployment down.
"It was agreed that Europe should implement the firm budgetary and other measures needed to
26
facilitate the rapid reductions in interest rates which are now required in many countries on the Continent. In North America, strong action was being taken to bring down fiscal deficits over the medium term with the objective of securing higher saving and investment. Japan, meanwhile, wilil implement fiscal and monetary measures to ensure sustained growth led by strong domestic demand. This will help to reduce Japan's large current account surplus.
"All of these measures are intended to help growth around the world. The Summit's accent on jobs was reflected in agreement to send high level representatives to a special meeting which President. Clinton is convening in the autumn. This will study the causes of unemployment and pool experience in seeking solutions.
"Madam Speaker, in April the Group of Seven put together an unprecedented set of measures to help Russia through its deep transformation. At Tokyo, the Heads of Government confirmed that approach, and noted that some large financial flows were already being made available, including 1.5 billion dollars in a new IMF facility. We set out a programme worth some three billion dollars to help privatisation and restructuring. There are some encouraging signs of a spreading enterprise culture in Russia. The summit leaders told President Yeltsin that they were determined to sustain the huge support they had given to reform in his country.
"Of equal importance, we have reinforced our political partnership with Russia. As an innovation this year, our agenda included a joint review with President Yeltsin of international problems. At my suggestion, the meeting concluded with an invitation to the Russian President to join us again next year in Italy.
"The political declaration touches on many of the problems we discussed with President Yeltsin, or beforehand among the Seven. We supported a negotiated settlement for Bosnia, but only on the basis that it would be acceptable to the Moslem people and not imposed on them. We highlighted the importance of the non-proliferation treaty; supported the constitutional talks in South Africa; and expressed concern about the behaviour of Iraq, Iran and Libya.
"The Summit paid close attention to problems of the developing world and of the environment. I secured agreement that improved debt reduction terms should be considered for the poorest and most indebted countries. I hope this will carry implementation of the Trinidad terms further. On the environment, the Summit reaffirmed its commitment to sustainable development and implementation of the Rio decisions.
"Finally, Madam Speaker, a word about the summit process itself. Over 19 meetings, the summits have evolved from an informal discussion between Heads of Government into an enormously expensive and over-structured international event. I believe that radical change is necessary if we are to get the best out of this process. I proposed

27
innovations last year, and I made further proposals in Tokyo. These were widely supported. I hope that, as a result, future summits will be more informal; less pre-prepared; and will provide even more opportunities for spontaneous discussion between the summit heads.
"Despite the procedural weaknesses I have mentioned, the Tokyo Summit produced results of particular benefit to the United Kingdom as an exporting nation and a leading advocate of free trade. It concentrated on problems which are causing deep concern around the world. It helped to bring leaders who are addressing these problems in common closer together. And it laid the groundwork, I believe, for productive work at future summits."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, we are grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
The Summit was clearly held at a critical juncture in the development of the world economy, which has been hit by recession and by unemployment. In the industrialised countries alone, 35 million people are now unemployed, with more out of work across the world. We therefore welcome President Clinton's initiative to combat unemployment, and hope that the Group of Seven countries will be prepared to take co-ordinated action to boost growth and to create jobs.
However, my regret is that it has taken so long for our own Government to recognise the importance of increased international planning and co-operation to safeguard jobs and to create new ones, and not merely to rely upon the operation of the market. I believe that that change of mind by the Government will give any proposals that they make at Mr. Clinton's proposed conclave on unemployment a special piquancy.
We also welcome the partial agreement on GATT and pay tribute to the important work undertaken by Sir Leon Brittan in helping to promote the agreement. Admittedly, certain difficulties remain. In particular, problems relating to agriculture still have to be addressed. The dispute over agriculture will not go away; it still exists. It has raged within the Group of Seven, and within the European Community. In that respect it is perhaps unfortunate that the Summit was not successful in resolving those problems over agriculture.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord will outline any new initiatives that the Government may have for resolving the dispute in the field of agriculture. Procedurally, what are the next steps to be taken following the partial understandings that were reached at Tokyo?
The Summit discussed, too, current developments within Russia, and apparently agreed a three billion dollar aid package for that country. We hope with the Government that that package will assist President
28
Yeltsin to promote economic reform and political stability within his country. Perhaps the noble Lord will elaborate a little on the thinking behind the granting of the three billion dollar package. When the Finance Ministers met in April, the figure apparently was to be four billion dollars. There is an apparent discrepancy between the two figures, but is there a discrepancy in reality? I shall be grateful to know how much of the three billion dollar aid package which was apparently agreed in Tokyo is new money; and how much of that is money that is already pledged, or in some cases has already gone.
The Summit also agreed what it called a comprehensive approach to the problems affecting the developing world. To be effective, that strategy must include the speedy implementation of the Trinidad terms on debt relief. Can the Minister outline what the Government are doing to secure that and, perhaps most importantly, to persuade the Japanese Government that it ultimately lies in their own interests to play a more positive role in promoting agreement on international debt relief? We on these Benches would also like to see the Government reverse their reduction in the United Kingdom's overseas aid programme to 0.31 per cent. and take definable and progressive steps towards reaching the United Nations aid target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP.
The fighting in Bosnia seems, understandably, to have cast a shadow over the summit. The Vance-Owen plan seems well and truly dead: numerous ceasefires have been broken and the killing goes on with no apparent end in sight. Sadly, the summit offered no new ideas or initiatives to bring an end to the anarchy in Bosnia. We need urgent international action to stop the fighting. As a matter of immediacy, sanctions must be strengthened and urgent consideration given to extending them to Croatia. The United Nations has to give practical meaning to the safeguarded areas and use the threat of air strikes to deter aggression. Was any of that discussed at the summit? If so, how far were any understandings reached?
We are also concerned by North Korea's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, although that, again, may be more apparent than real. I should welcome the Minister's comment on that, too. We welcome the fact that President Clinton has extended the moratorium on nuclear tests for a year. We hope that the Government will play a more positive role in working towards the implementation of a comprehensive test ban treaty.
Looking at the Summit as a whole, it would seem that it was one of those meetings that did not solely rely upon producing a verbal communique at the end, but, particularly in terms of the GATT, seems to have taken one or two practical steps, which I am bound to say is refreshing.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, from these Benches, may I also welcome the Statement, from the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister, which he read to the House. This was a Summit for which the expectations were extremely low and, by contrast, I think we may all take some

29
pleasure in the outcome. Certainly, there is a welcome sign that the sclerosis which has afflicted the international scene over the past 18 months has had some remission. In that sense, the summit should be counted at least as a partial success. I suppose a cynic might say that seven leaders all in search of good news for domestic purposes will probably find a silver lining and so they managed to do so.
However, particularly welcome is the pressure that the summit engendered on the so-called Quad countries for the agreement on better market access, not least Japan's agreement in principle to abolish the remaining duty on Scotch. Perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House how definite is Japan's agreement to remove the import duty on Scotch. I understand his right honourable friend the Prime Minister will visit Japan in September. Will he by then be able to raise a glass of Scotch with Mr. Miyazawa's successor, to celebrate the removal of the final import duty? Perhaps he could be as specific as possible in replying to that.
On the Uruguay Round, we are still not out of the woods, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said. I am sure that the Government know that we on these Benches give complete support for the Uruguay Round and for the resumption of freer trade in the world. Can the noble Lord give us some prognosis of what is now likely to happen with the Uruguay Round negotiations in Geneva? Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, we welcome the aspirations on debt reductions and the hope that the Trinidad terms will be taken further, but I notice that the language used in the Statement is quite weak. It merely says that that will he considered. What news has the Minister for us of definite progress there?
Then we come to the important question of unemployment. There is certainly a welcome sign of a more positive international approach. It is also welcome that all industrialised countries now accept that there are deep structural problems and not simply temporary problems of recession to be dealt with. I believe that it is a fair criticism that in the past the United Kingdom Government have had a rather more limited approach than some other countries on the matter, certainly more limited than the proactive Clinton approach. It seems that the international community will need the full gamut of supply-side measures, rather than confining its hopes simply to freeing up markets. In that context, our active membership of the European Community, which is currently being discussed in the House, is crucial. How do the Government see the Clinton initiative relating to the Delors initiative on unemployment?
Then there is the question of Bosnia. In that context, I was concerned, as I am sure other noble Lords were, to see what seemed to be back-tracking by the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on removing the arms embargo in Bosnia. That has not appeared in the Statement this afternoon and I am unclear as to its status in the final communiqué. Perhaps the noble Lord will reassure us that the Government's policy has not changed and that the arms embargo should not be lifted.
A question to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard,
30
referred is nuclear proliferation. The communiqué reiterated the objective of universal adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to its indefinite extension in 1995, as well as to nuclear arms reductions. In that context, perhaps I may urge the Government to find an early opportunity to restate their commitment to nuclear testing restraint. Perhaps the noble Lord could do that when he replies. In particular, will the Minister welcome President Clinton's decision to extend the moratorium on US nuclear tests until September 1994? Will he support President Clinton's objective of achieving a comprehensive test ban treaty by September 1996? Will he declare the willingness of Her Majesty's Government to participate in talks towards achieving a comprehensive test ban treaty by 1996, when the talks resume later this year?
There was a reference in the Statement to the costs of social provisions exceeding the capacity of the signatories to meet them. Is that something on which the Minister would like to expand to the House? What particular cuts do the Government have in mind in the level of social provisions as a result of the Tokyo Summit? It would be useful if the Minister could share the Government's intentions more fully with the House.
Finally, at the end of the Statement there was a sensible reference to the Summit being less elaborate, "more informal". That is surely to be welcomed. The Summit has become a three-ring circus, with tens of thousands of media people swarming round plus many officials. It is easy to support it being more informal, but I wonder why the Government want it to be less well prepared. Is lack of preparation now to be considered a political vice? Conversely, has it become a virtue to go into meetings without being properly prepared? Perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten us on that.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Holme, for their general welcome to much of what went on in Tokyo. They asked a great many questions which I shall do my best to answer, although I have a fair number of bits of paper here. Perhaps I may start with the last but not necessarily the most important point. The proposal for the Summit is that there should be less ceremonial, fewer people, less paper and more time for leaders to meet in person to exchange views and help build a consensus. That is what is meant by less pre-preparation; that leaders go there with fewer preconceived notions as to what are necessarily the solutions, but have a proper free discussion to try to learn something. The important point is that this Summit, in spite of the difficulties—which are highlighted perhaps by the fact that there were some 11,000 media men at Tokyo, which works out at something like 1,600 media men for every one head of government who was present—was serious, realistic and businesslike. It was not a decision-making forum, but a forum for harmonising thinking. It was an opportunity to exchange views, build consensus and develop and deepen understanding. It was in that context that a number of the points raised by both noble Lords were discussed.

31
Obviously, the questions about unemployment were among the most important that were discussed. The tone and wording of the declaration afterwards on the question of unemployment had clear echoes of some of the points made by the Prime Minister both at the Copenhagen Summit and at Tokyo: namely, that high unemployment was caused by inflexible labour markets; there was commitment to measures that increase flexibility and encourage enterprise; and the Government particularly welcomed President Clinton's suggestion of a high level meeting to discuss these matters in relation to unemployment later in the year. I do not believe that there is any conflict between that meeting and any initiatives which M. Delors may propose for the European Community, which will be examined within the European Community discussions.
One important point about the GATT arrangements applied to agriculture as well. The market-access package was not about agriculture. But it was thought (and I agree) important for all the dossiers to be reactivated in Geneva for the multi-national negotiation. Steps were taken at Tokyo on the question of the Quad countries reporting back to other countries. Obviously, they did not settle the agreement. This is the answer to the question about the price of Scotch. The agreement reached in Tokyo is conditional upon getting full agreement in the multi-lateral talks in Geneva. But it was a very significant move forward that the major countries at Tokyo should agree that together they would push for the round of tariff reductions, many of which will be beneficial to this country. It is important in relation to the position of the French, mentioned in exchanges just a few moments ago. The French particularly welcome the Quad report, but the Community only takes a formal decision once that has been negotiated. As my noble friend Lady Chalker said, it is difficult for any member state to hold out against a balanced deal which offers benefits both to developed and developing world alike. I gather that there are, particularly, in this agreement some significant advantages for the French economy, which is encouraging from that country's point of view. For example, the agreement on services is particularly valuable to the French as well as to this country. The agreement on Scotch was also matched, I believe, by an agreement on what is known as brown spirits. I believe that most noble Lords would know that as brandy and subjects of that sort.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, raised the question of debt and of the progress that was made in that respect. The Prime Minister raised that subject and the Summit welcomed the call to the Paris Club to look again at the relief for the poorest and heavily indebted countries; especially to get earlier action case by case on reducing debt stock, as proposed by the United Kingdom. We are still pressing for the full Trinidad terms to be brought into operation; but there was some significant progress, at least in the understanding between the countries represented at the Summit.
With regard to Yugoslavia, which both noble Lords raised, the position was not taken further in the
32
sense that there were new initiatives. But there was a clear warning both to Serbia and to Croatia from the G7 that the dismemberment of Bosnia is unacceptable; the safe area resolutions must be implemented fully and immediately. There was a warning that stronger measures beyond sanctions have not been ruled out.
With regard to the non-proliferation treaty, which both noble Lords raised, there was a considerable section in the political declaration covering the key international concerns. That too was based very much upon the suggested language from the United Kingdom delegation. It sends clear signals to North Korea, Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, about social security, the point in the Prime Minister's Statement referring to the rising cost of social provision in all the countries of the G7 was discussed, and was part of the communique. I should make it clear that the Government have an absolute commitment to helping the most needy and vulnerable in society. But as the discussions in Tokyo showed, countries need to control ever increasing bills for social welfare. Otherwise, an intolerable rise in tax burden, diverting resources from private investment, would be inevitable. Across the whole of the G7 countries that problem is a matter that will have to be addressed over the years. There is no intention on the part of the Government to cease the help that we give to the needy and the most vulnerable in our society. I believe that I have covered most of the points raised by noble Lords.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I wonder if I may put to the noble Lord the Leader of the' House a point that he did not answer: how much of the Russian money is new money?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I did not include the position on the new money. There are two amounts of assistance. There is 1.5 billion dollars of international monetary fund stand-by credits which have now been agreed, and an agreed programme of a 3 billion dollar contribution to technical assistance. That 3 billion dollars is largely from technical assistance, export credit and loans from international financial contributors. Much of the resources were already announced, but this will provide accelerated implementation, co-ordination and targeting. That is what was agreed.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may put to him a question that he was not able to answer. It is the question of whether the Government's policy remains unchanged on the arms embargo in Bosnia.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I did make that point quite clear in my answer. I said that there was no change in the policy announced but there was a warning, which has been made before, that stronger measures beyond sanctions have not been ruled out.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us feel that the Prime Minister is to be warmly congratulated on the distinguished part

33
that he played in achieving the considerable measure of success which this conference achieved? That is very gratifying to many of us in this country. However, can my noble friend go a little further on the question of the common agricultural policy and agricultural protection? In particular, has there been any modification of the attitude of the French Government which, as I understand it, has for some time been the main obstacle to achieving progress in that direction?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, that was not a question that was directly discussed at Tokyo. The point that was discussed at Tokyo was the Quad countries' agreement for tariff reductions. But the Government believe that the reduction in tariffs, which is now going to the revitalised Geneva talks, gives benefits to everybody, including the French. Therefore, it is hopeful that it will make the negotiations in Geneva more likely to be successful.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, perhaps I can press the Minister on the point raised by my noble friend on the Front Bench concerning the credits which are now to be made available. In the case of earlier credits from the German Government to the Soviet Union as part of aid, a substantial proportion of those credits were used for the repayment of debts to German banks and German industries and did not in fact represent new money for new investment. Can I have the assurance that the moneys referred to in the Statement will be direct moneys for technical assistance in the former Soviet Union and will not necessarily be used to repay the substantial debts that are due from the Soviet Union?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I know nothing about the repayment of substantial debts. I know that the figures that have been agreed have been designed for privatisation and the restructuring programme. That is my understanding of the position.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the Statement reports back to Parliament what has transpired. I should like to follow up the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about whether or not the French have reformed. They very clearly had certain views before the summit took place. They seemed dangerous and difficult views in some respects. Although a decision may not have been made one way or another arising out of their past views, did they give any indication at all about their feelings at this minute compared with the previous statement or were they using the right of silence?
Lord Wakeham: Absolutely not, my Lords. The French took a full part in the Quad countries' discussions about tariff reductions. They agreed fully with those tariff reductions, which are to be submitted to the meeting in Geneva. It is to be hoped that that meeting will now have a new impetus for agreement. That is an encouraging round. As regards the position that the French will take over the whole package, we do not know what their views will be over the whole package. All I can say is that the discussions that took
34
place in Tokyo are thought—I believe correctly—to make a distinct improvement in the prospects of getting the overall package agreed at Geneva.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I acknowledge that it was quite right of the Prime Minister to stress the importance of unemployment, which is the curse of Europe and indeed nearly all the world. However, can we now expect to see a change in policy in order to reduce unemployment in this country'? It was right for the Prime Minister to acknowledge that we have to help the Russians. But does he agree that we must bear in mind that there are other former Soviet Union countries as well as Russia that are affected and it would be quite wrong to concentrate on aid just for Russia and neglect the others? Does he also agree that the abolition of nuclear weapons must be an international endeavour and that we can in no way get rid of our weapons unless we know full well that the rest of the world will dispose of theirs?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a question about a change in policy in regard to unemployment. I should have thought that the message that came out of the Tokyo Summit was that there was a greater realisation that the policies being pursued by Her Majesty's Government in this country are the right policies to reduce unemployment by providing sustainable long-term jobs in this country. Each country in the G7 agreed to tackle the problems for economic growth in its own way in the face of its own particular problems. For example, the United States has to tackle its budget deficit; Japan, in particular, has to support domestic demand (an area where it can assist); and the continental countries have to work towards lower interest rates. There was no suggestion that everybody's policies should be the same. Each country agreed to tackle the problems of unemployment in the ways best for its own circumstances. A great deal of notice was taken of what our Prime Minister suggested as to ways forward which are proving successful in this country.
With regard to the other countries in the former Soviet Union, the noble Lord is right. There are massive problems in many if not all of them. Considerable efforts are being made by British industry and the British Government through the know-how fund and so on to try to stimulate activities in those countries. In my previous incarnation, I played a modest part in trying to encourage the energy industries. There was no suggestion that the role of the United Kingdom with regard to nuclear weapons was in any way to be called in question at the summit. The noble Lord is quite right that disarmament is a matter for world agreement and not for a unilateral step by us or the United States.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is ironic that the French economy and currency at present are facing problems in relation to the German currency and that those problems are very similar to the problems that we faced last September? Those problems were due to the refusal of the French to allow the Germans to revalue. Will he assure us that Her Majesty's Government will resist the pressures,

35
which were widely reported this weekend to have been exerted at Tokyo, for Britain to rejoin the ERM in order to help the French?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that there was no debate at Tokyo about whether we rejoin the ERM.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I congratulate my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the Statement and its repetition in this House. Will my noble friend say whether there is anything further that he can say about the reductions in tariffs for high quality textiles which are obviously coming from the United States? That is a very welcome move from a country that is well known for its protectionism in that area. Do I take it that any agreement of that kind has to await further discussion at the GATT round?
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. There are high tariffs faced by British exporters, particularly in the United States. As a result of the Quad agreement, the proposal going to Geneva is that they should be cut by 50 per cent. or more. That will be of particular benefit to a number of companies in this country which produce high quality textiles.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
4.38 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("and IV") and insert ("IV and V (except Article J/").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a brief, probing amendment which I tabled in order to pursue the debate that my noble friend the Minister and I had together at Committee stage on 29th June. My questions concern Title V of the Treaty on European Union (Article J as it is also known), which covers the proposed common foreign and security policy.
The amendment proposes to leave out Article J.3 because, despite what my noble friend said in Committee, Article J.3.2 still seems to me to provide for a joint action—whatever that may be—to be pursued by a qualified majority vote. In our Committee proceedings, I asked my noble friend whether a joint action could involve the use of British troops. She replied by pointing to Article J.4 which deals with the foreign policy, security and defence of the proposed European Union. She pointed out that Article J.4.3 states that:
"Issues having defence implications dealt with under this Article"—
that is, Article J.4—
"shall not be subject to the procedures set out in Article J/"—
that is, implying the use of the qualified majority vote.
My noble friend opined that that ruled out a joint action committing British troops. With respect, I am not sure that I can agree, and that is why I tabled this amendment. If my noble friend is correct, can she tell
36
the House exactly what a joint action might be? If a joint action is not covered by the provisions of Article J.4, what is it? Could it be, for example, an operation such as we have helped to mount in Bosnia or such as we may be obliged to mount almost anywhere else on this troubled planet under the terms of the treaty? Could British troops be obliged, by qualified majority vote in the Council, to accompany aid through hostile territory elsewhere, and therefore could their lives be still put at stake? If so, is that not a substantial cession of our sovereignty to qualified majority voting in the Council? Those are questions which I have previously asked my noble friend. I would be most grateful if she could see her way to giving the answers which she was not able to supply at our Committee proceedings.
I would be grateful if my noble friend could also answer one other question about Article J which, again, I asked in Committee and to which I did not get a reply. That question is this: what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the declaration on voting in the fields of common foreign and security policy, which declaration is to be found at the back of the treaty? Britain has signed this declaration. It reads as follows:
"The Conference agrees that, with regard to Council decisions requiring unanimity, Member States will, to the extent possible, avoid preventing a unanimous decision where a qualified majority exists in favour of that decision".
I put this question to my noble friend before and did not get an answer; so I have to put it again now. What is the force of that declaration? Do Her Majesty's Government intend to respect it? When she comes to consider her reply can she dwell a little on the words "to the extent possible"? Surely it will always be possible for us to agree to a unanimous vote even if that vote would lead to military or other action endangering our troops' lives and perhaps even our national interest. Does my noble friend not agree that this declaration very substantially weakens our ability to resist a qualified majority vote being used against what we regard as our interest even under Article J.4 which she quoted on 29th June? If this is not so, what is the point of the declaration?
The Government have said on several occasions that both Titles V and VI—Articles J and K—of the Treaty on European Union operate only by unanimity under a process known as intergovernmental co-operation. The Foreign Office has said that these two new pillars are to be binding in international law; which means, I think, that we must take them very seriously. My own reading of the treaty suggests that neither title does in fact operate only by unanimity, but I shall be dealing with Article K under Amendment No. 12 later on. In the meantime, I should be most grateful if my noble friend could answer the questions I put to her on Title V or Article J and on the declaration on unanimous voting, to which I referred, now that we have reached the Report Stage of these proceedings.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I was not able to be present when this item was debated on 29th June because I was leading the United Kingdom delegation, which I have done for seven years, to the Council of Europe. I should like to ask my noble friend whether

37
she will examine the relationship between the Petersburg Declaration and the Maastricht agreement which deals with Western European Union.
I have to remind your Lordships that defence—particularly on Bosnia, on the Iran-Iraq sanctions and on the Gulf War—was co-ordinated to a very large extent by the Western European Union. That treaty remains in force for 50 years from 1948 and cannot be denounced before then. There is an argument between the parliamentary assembly of Western European Union, where again I have the honour of leading the United Kingdom delegation and the Ministerial Council as to whether the 50 years should date from 1948 or from 1954, the date of the modified Brussels treaty. But I shall not ask my noble friend to enter into that argument at this stage.
The ceding of sovereignty in the field of defence took place when we joined NATO so those who are now complaining that we have lost sovereignty in defence must learn the facts of life. We ceded sovereignty in the field of defence when we signed the modified Brussels treaty and the original Brussels treaty. It is very important that your Lordships are not deceived by some of the arguments that are being put forward by those who for a variety of reasons—I am sure, very sincere and well founded—are trying to say that in the field of defence we are giving away very much. That is just not so.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps I may add to what my noble friend Lord Finsberg said and make one very brief comment. Not only do we have obligations under NATO and WEU but also with regard to humanitarian aid, which my noble friend Lord Pearson quite rightly raised. We are obligated as members of the Security Council of the United Nations and signatories to the charter of the United Nations. We have obligations under that charter as well.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, it was not my intention to take part in this debate but the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, has encouraged me to say a few words in the hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, when she comes to reply, will give a clearer definition of the role of the Western European Union.
I had the honour to serve for five years as a member of the Western European Union and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, for his leadership of the United Kingdom delegation. Throughout that period of five years' membership of the Western European Union one of the things that struck me forcefully was the number of times British Foreign Secretaries, whoever happened to be Foreign Secretary at the time, said that the Government had it in mind to strengthen the role of the Western European Union. I came to realise that that was a euphemism for doing nothing.
I can remember a decision being taken to establish a parliamentary institution to oversee the work of the CSCE. I argued at that time that we already had parliamentary institutions in Europe that could easily
38
oversee the work of the CSCE in a different field. When it came to the discussions to create the European Economic Area between the European Free Trade Association and the EEC it was decided at that stage also to establish a parliamentary institution to oversee the work of the amalgamated EFTA and the EEC. The problem is that Europe is littered with parliamentary institutions. None of them knows quite what the others are doing. We have the EEC, the Western European Union, the Council of Europe, the North Atlantic Assembly, the parliamentary institution that oversees the work of the CSCE and we have the proposal to put in place some kind of parliamentary scrutiny to oversee the amalgamation of EFTA and the EEC. We also have NATO, which has no direct parliamentary role.
One of the major defence problems in Europe, if I may say so to the Minister, is the contradiction that although France is not a member of NATO it is a member of the Western European Union. The treaty to which the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, referred lays down specifically that the headquarters and meeting place of the Western European Union must always be in Paris. So we have this contradiction whereby France is not a member of NATO but is a leading and dominant member of the Western European Union. No one quite knows what the role of the Western European Union is.
I can understand some of the problems because of the way in which the Western European Union has been enlarged over the years by member states which are not members of the EEC, on the one hand, or NATO, on the other hand. Whichever party is in power, it is simply not good enough for Her Majesty's Government to go on saying that they intend to strengthen the Western European Union as a defence pillar while at the same time restricting the budget. That has constantly been the problem of the Western European Union. The budget contributions coming from the member states have always been restricted. Therefore, the Western European Union is working on a very tight budget indeed. It is simply not good enough for governments to say that they intend strengthening the Western European Union while restricting the budget.
My final word is concerned with an illustration of the contradictions that appear from time to time in relation to the Western European Union. At the time of the outbreak of hostilities in the former Yugoslavia—the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, will remember this well—the defence committee of the WEU convened a meeting in order to take advice (not to take action) on the basis that if military intervention in Bosnia was to go ahead we wanted to know the number of troops required in order to intervene in Yugoslavia. We also wanted to know about other tactical factors which related to the outbreak of hostilities in Yugoslavia.
As it always does, the committee met in Paris. Half-an-hour before the meeting took place we were told by the clerk to the committee that Herr Dietrich Genscher, who at that time was the German Foreign Secretary and who also held the position of chairman

39
of the ministerial council which oversees the WEU, had intervened and forbidden the experts to give advice to the defence committee of the WEU.
All I am saying to the noble Baroness is this. While I recognise that in the Maastricht negotiations defence and foreign policy are two separate pillars, and not actually part of the negotiations that the Committee is discussing at the moment, there has to be a much clearer definition of the role of the Western European Union in order that those who subscribe to its aims and work know clearly what lies ahead for that organisation in the years to come.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch will allow me first to answer the more general questions and then to return to his specific questions. I believe that that will set in context the questions which he himself asked and which I sought to answer on 29th June when we had our debate. However, he has retabled these matters at Report stage. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, that the Western European Union rather than the Twelve will be responsible for implementing decisions with defence implications. I hope that is made clear. It is certainly made clear in the Maastricht Treaty. There is nothing in that treaty that will compel the United Kingdom to commit forces to military action against our will. In that sense I link the noble Lord's comments with those of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch.
I also say to him that one of the interesting developments has been how the Western European Union is seeking to work ever more closely in future with NATO and with the partners currently in the European political co-operation under CFSP, which is a separate pillar of the treaty. Perhaps I may also tell him that the Western European Union no longer has its headquarters in Paris. They have been moved to Brussels for easier co-ordination with NATO of all relevant matters. Therefore, that answers the noble Lord's question as to why, when France is not a fully participating member of NATO, although she does join in, the headquarters were still in Paris. The move has already taken place to Brussels.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg, as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirk ford, said, led the delegation to the WEU in a very distinguished manner for many years. He was right to ask about the relationships between the WEU and other agreements. Perhaps I may also say that he was 100 per cent. right when he said that for our common good we ceded our sovereignty with our membership of NATO and through various other treaties.
I return for one moment to something which came to my mind when the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, was speaking. Some Members have asked me in the corridors about new members of the EC in relation to the Western European Union. The new European Community members have three options: they may become full members of the Western European Union; they may have observer status or they may not join in at all. It will be entirely up to them. As the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford,
40
will know, historically, WEU members have organised territorial defence through NATO. We believe that it makes sense for that to continue.
As the noble Lord intimated in his remarks, the Maastricht Treaty makes it clear that it is for the WEU to elaborate and implement decisions and actions which have defence implications. That will be done in collaboration with the CFSP pillar, but separately from it. By forming a bridge between the European Community partners and NATO, it ensures that everything which is done by the partners in the security field has to be compatible with the views and activities of NATO. That is what Article J.4(4) is all about.
There is a dual role as a defence component of the European Union and as a means of strengthening the European pillar of NATO. That is why the WEU, quite rightly, after all its long and excellent experience, as my noble friend Lord Finsberg said, will have the key co-ordinating role.
We have had the groundwork for effective co-ordination already laid. I believe it was that to which my noble friend Lord Finsberg referred when he mentioned the June 1992 WEU Council of Ministers. They approved practical measures which were needed to develop close working relationships between the WEU, on the one hand, and the union and NATO, on the other.
In December last the NATO foreign ministers endorsed the guidelines for the practical working relationship between NATO and the WEU. We now have both sets of measures providing for close contact between the secretariats, a regular exchange of information and reciprocal attendance at meetings where necessary. Those provisions will be further implemented gradually as the WEU settles down in its new home in Brussels.
Perhaps I may now return to the essential elements of this particular amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I did attempt to answer his questions previously. I shall go through what he has asked once again. He asked about joint action. Joint action is defined in Title V of the treaty. It is to develop the existing European political co-operation arrangements so that we have a stronger commitment in the areas in which member states have important interests in common. But all key decisions, such as areas which should be subject to joint action, will be taken by unanimity. The United Kingdom has had considerable success here because we have succeeded in ensuring that the provisions are workable and flexible. Joint actions have to be specific. For example, the Middle East would be too broad a subject to be workable in joint action, but EC participation in peace conferences on the Middle East might be a good subject for joint action.
Therefore, joint actions will be specific, workable and usually time-limited, but they will also be subject to review should circumstances change. That is covered by Article J.3(3) which states:
"If there is a change in circumstances having a substantial effect on a question subject to joint action, the Council shall review the principles and objectives of that action and take the necessary decisions".

41
As long as the Council has not acted, joint action shall stand. That is all covered by Article J.3(3).
Perhaps I may advise my noble friend that it is wrong to suggest that joint action includes military action and the deployment of British troops. As I explained in Committee, Article J.4(3) clearly excludes defence from joint action, stating:
"Issues having defence implications dealt with under this Article shall not be subject to the procedures set out in Article J/".
That refers to the whole of Article J.3, which deals with joint action and which comprises paragraphs 1 to 7.
My noble friend went on to ask me what will happen about the troops who might be assisting in the delivery of humanitarian aid. Perhaps I may say to him unequivocally that if troops are involved, those troops obviously have defence implications. That is clearly covered by Article J.4(3), which reads as follows:
"Issues having defence implications dealt with under this Article shall not be subject to the procedures set out in Article J/".
I hope that my noble friend will feel a little happier on that score.
I turn now to Articles J.3(5), J.3(6) and J.3(7). These paragraphs provide various let-outs so that member states cart, if necessary, take emergency action without having to agree it first with others. Member states can even be exempt from a joint action if it would cause them severe difficulties, provided that they do not undermine it. Those provisions are there specifically should something arise not at present foreseen by members of the Community.
I know that my noble friend is concerned about the use of qualified majority voting, which is covered by Articles J.8(2) and J.3(2). We covered this ground in Committee. The use of qualified majority voting in carefully chosen circumstances can make CFSP more effective by speeding up the decision-making process, but there is absolutely no question of qualified majority voting applying as a general rule. The general rule is one of unanimity, as outlined by Article J.8(2), which states:
"The Council shall act unanimously, except for procedural questions and in the case referred to in Article J.3(2)".
The use of that qualified majority voting is strictly circumscribed. It can only be applied to second order implementing decisions (for example, to the question of how many people should be included in a delegation) and only when there is unanimous agreement to extend it to such an area. That is why Article J.3(2) states:
"The Council shall, when adopting the joint action and at any stage during its development, define those matters on which decisions are to be taken by a qualified majority".
That is why we have used the phrase on many previous occasions that the United Kingdom has a double lock on the use of qualified majority voting: first, in putting a subject into joint action and, secondly, in agreeing to the use of qualified majority voting. If we decide that all decisions, no matter how small, need to be taken by unanimity, then they will be taken by unanimity. We have tried to think of an example to make this even more crystal clear to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Such an example would have occurred if
42
there had been any disagreement. Perhaps I may put it to my noble friend in this way: we decided to deploy European Community monitors in the former Yugoslavia in our European political co-operation by unanimity. That was, of course, before the Maastricht Treaty could come into effect. We have decided that the same will happen subsequently. An example of an area where we might jointly decide that qualified majority voting was appropriate would be the administrative arrangements relating to the European Community's deployment of monitors in the former Yugoslavia, having decided that they should be deployed and where they should be deployed. I hope that we would then be sensible enough to use qualified majority voting to decide what colour the monitors' vehicles should be and that we would not spend long hours arguing about the colour of the paintwork on those vehicles. However, that would not alter the fact that we would take a unanimous decision on whether to send monitors and to what destination.
My noble friend is also concerned about the declaration on voting in the field of the common foreign and security policy undermining unanimity. Perhaps I may advise him that it certainly does not undermine the unanimity requirement because declarations are not part of the treaty and are thus not enacted by this Bill. The declarations give evidence of a political commitment undertaken by the parties to the treaty. This particular declaration reflects the fact that, in practice, the Twelve do strive for consensus which is, of course, one of the strengths of the system. But the treaty requirement for unanimity as covered by Title V still remains, as I made clear in Committee on 29th June. The declaration, Which states:
"The High Contracting Parties shall, as far as possible, refrain from impeding formation of a consensus",
simply restates Article 30.3(C) of the Single European Act.
My noble friend asked me what we mean by "to the extent possible". Having sat through a number of Council meetings, including meetings on European political co-operation, I can tell my noble friend that, if necessary, we continue for many hours in order to try to reach a consensus. If there were some real reason why we should not reach agreement, it would no doubt become very clear. However, "to the extent possible" means involving the goodwill of the members of the Council or the committee, and that goodwill is usually apparent. Even if the means of achieving the ends is not always agreed at the beginning, it becomes clear after argument.
I have tried today to put more flesh on the bones of the arguments that I used in Committee on a very similar amendment. I ask my noble friend to look at what I have said today together with what I said to him at col. 783 on 29th June. The fears that he has expressed are certainly real fears, and I can only say that if, when he has read 'what I have said today and when he has read again what was said on 29th June, he cannot see why I am so sure of this, perhaps I had better see him outside the Chamber to try to put his mind at rest. I can certainly advise him, however, that he need not have the concerns that he has expressed.

43
I believe that his mind will be set at rest if he reads Article J.4(3) in conjunction with what I have said today.
I sincerely hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment to a vote, but should he so decide, I must advise your Lordships to reject the amendment because it would not ease the path—in fact, it would make quite a nonsense.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I would say to my noble friends Lord Finsberg and Lady Elles who have indicated that we have already given some of our absolute sovereignty away to bodies such as NATO and the WEU, that, of course, I accept that. I can assure my noble friend Lord Finsberg that I am not trying to frighten anyone by moving this amendment. I am merely trying to establish the extent to which we go further along that road in Title V or Article J, because we have been given to understand that both Titles V and VI can be operated only by unanimity. So I am, of course, particularly grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her explanation that all key decisions will be taken by unanimity when we are dealing with joint actions.
I have been very glad to learn—I must say for the first time—that joint actions will not include the use of British troops to protect aid convoys and so on; but that joint actions will be confined to altogether more harmless activities such as deciding the colours of ambulances and buses, and so on.
I was aware that the declaration on the CFSP was not part of the treaty; but, nevertheless, as I felt we had signed it, I thought that it put an onus on Her Majesty's Government to go along with unanimity when, perhaps, they might not have been happy to do so. But I feel sure that everything my noble friend has said from the Front Bench will be very helpful to have on the record. As I said at the start of the amendment, it was a brief probing amendment, and I am very happy to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("together with the other provisions of the Treaty so far as they relate to those Titles.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 4 and 41, is also designed as a very brief probing amendment, but I think that it may be an important one. Clause 1 of the Bill proposes to incorporate Titles II, III and IV of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht into the Treaty of Rome, and, therefore, into British law. The Bill goes on to say that these regrettable titles are to be so imported:
"together with the other provisions of the Treaty so far as they relate to those titles".
The amendment would seek to remove the words that I have just quoted.
It seems to me that we should know what "other provisions" are being imported into the treaty beyond those which are already there, and which, therefore, do not require to be imported by this Bill. They are clearly additional provisions or else the words which
44
the amendment would remove are superfluous, and so the amendment could be accepted. I wonder whether my noble friend can enlighten us on the precise meaning of these words.
Amendment No. 4 which is grouped with Amendment No. 41 takes Amendment No. 3 into somewhat greater detail. It seeks to make explicit that whatever other provisions are being imported, apart from Titles II, III and IV of the Union Treaty, Title V covering our proposed common foreign and security policy, and Title VI covering our common justice and home affairs policy, will not be so imported. So the question I ask my noble friend, to which, I must say, I have not been able to discover an answer elsewhere is quite simply: what is the point of the words which the amendment seeks to remove? What are the "other provisions" referred to? If the answer is "nothing" I wonder whether the Government might be inclined to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend asked why we have in the Bill the words "other provisions". If he looks back at our debate in Committee on Amendment No. 189, he will see the response given then, but let me explain in slightly greater detail now.
The "other provisions" to which the Bill refers in this context are the preamble, the common provisions (Title I) and the final provisions (Title VII). Noble Lords may wonder why those provisions are not being incorporated into UK law, lock, stock and barrel. The reason is that they relate to the Community treaties (Titles II, III and IV) and also to the two inter-governmental pillars (Title V—Common Foreign and Security Policy and Title VI—Justice/ Home Affairs). If we were merely to incorporate those "other provisions" into UK law in toto, we would be blurring the distinction between the Community pillar and the two inter-governmental pillars in the Treaty on European Union.
The Government believe that that is an important distinction and it was the result of a UK negotiating effort at Maastricht, and what we regard as a success. It runs through the treaty. I believe that it would be wrong of us not to mirror the treaty in EC law. I am seeking to persuade my noble friend that Amendment No. 3 will erode the very independence of the pillars on CFSP and justice and home affairs which I know many of your Lordships are pleased are separate from the European Community. I am glad to have a nod from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on that score, because in our earlier debates I found that there was a high degree of agreement on the issue that the two inter-governmental pillars should remain separate from the Community treaty.
Amendment No. 4, which my noble friend has associated with Amendment No. 3, and the schedule suggested in Amendment No. 41 which accompanies Amendment No. 4 seek to require us to specify the "other provisions". That is unnecessary. As it stands, Clause 1(1) is perfectly clear. As I have said, the other provisions that will be incorporated are those that relate to the Community titles. As a matter of

45
legislative drafting, it would be bad practice to try to list precisely the provisions which relate to the Community treaties. For example, it would be a very complex drafting task to divide Article E of the common provisions into those elements which apply to the Community titles and those which do not.
A similar technique was used successfully in the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986. It gave effect to the Single European Act which also contained not just. EC but inter-governmental provisions. It, too, used the phraseology
"so far as they relate to"
to bring in those common provisions of the rest of the treaty which related to the EC provisions. There has been no evidence that that has caused any difficulty in this country or in any other country. It would make good sense to keep the two Bills—I hope, the two Acts—in parallel.
The Bill as it stands is clear. It maintains the important distinction which I have described between the Community and the inter-governmental pillars. That is why I urge your Lordships, should my noble friend press his amendments, to resist them all.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. As I said in introducing the amendment, it was at this stage only a probing amendment. The areas it covered are clearly somewhat boggy, and require considerable attention from those more versed in legal drafting. Therefore, if I may, I should like to take away what my noble friend has said and examine it with those who advise me. In the meantime. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Citizenship
(". In implementing Article 8 of the Treaty of European Union, Her Majesty's Government shall provide arrangements for any British citizen to renounce citizenship or the Union.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 6. At the week-end my noble friend Lord Jay, who had intended to move the amendment, unfortunately fell and hurt himself and is unable to be present today. I feel sure that the House will wish to send him its good wishes for a speedy recovery.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it has therefore fallen to me to move the amendment which relates to European citizenship and the right to contract out. Together the amendments would give people the right to contract out of being European citizens.
I make no apology for returning to the subject at this stage. I read what was said about Clause 8 on Second Reading by the noble and learned Lord the
46
Lord Chancellor and in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. However, for a number of reasons I remain worried about the citizenship provisions.
First, I have asked myself why they are there at all. They are not necessary to the treaty; they are not necessary to give the treaty teeth. That appeared to be confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, in a debate on the EMU in Committee. He said:
"the Treaty of Maastricht deals with economic and monetary union. That is why I have said in this Chamber on more than one occasion that the Treaty of Maastricht is a useful and valuable treaty. Essentially its aim is not to give economic and monetary union its legal base—that has already been done in the Single European Act—but to fill in the detail. It does one other thing which is of particular significance to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. It brings out into the open things which hitherto have been done in private. In other words, we are enabled to see what lies behind the arras. I have always said that he who wanted to see was always in a position to see. But that is exactly and precisely what the Treaty of Maastricht does".—[Official Report, 23/6/93; col. 358.]
Since, according to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, Maastricht simply fills in the details of the Single European Act why do we now have the concept of a European citizenship, which was not in that Act? Was that one of the issues hidden behind the arras, as the noble Lord put it? If so, were we misled about the real intentions of the Single European Act? Were the government of the day misled about the real intentions of the Single European Act? I contend that they were. They had no idea, for example, that Article 100a of that Act would be used to impose on this country policies which were outside the orbit of that government and, indeed, of this Government too.
Again and again we were assured that that could not happen. But it did happen and that is why so many of us are concerned about this treaty. That is also why we must be most careful about its wording. I wonder who were the advisers who were not able to give proper advice. How was it that people could be so misled about the Single European Act? Or was it just another turn of the ratchet towards a federal European state inserted by the centralisers and federalists?
Noble Lords will recall that the Dutch presidency produced a draft Treaty of European Union which was openly federalist. Indeed, it contained the dreaded "F" word. I have a copy of that treaty which states in Article 1:
"by this treaty, which marks a new stage in a process leading gradually to a European union with a federal goal".
That was in the draft treaty but it is interesting to see what comes after Article 1, Part One. Part Two deals with Community citizenship; in other words, the first mention of that is in the draft Dutch treaty, which openly refers to a federal union. Therefore, we must be most careful about the words which are used and we must know what they mean and why they are there. The Prime Minister was successful in having the "F" word removed. But did not the concept of federalism remain and with it Clause 8 as we now have it in the Treaty of Maastricht? Surely that is what has happened and surely that is why we should remain antagonistic towards the concept of Euro-citizenship.
On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:

47
"Maastricht will not make us subject to anyone other than Her Majesty and we shall not owe any allegiance to the European Union".—[Official Report, 8/6/93; col. 714.]
No doubt that was comforting to many noble Lords and no doubt the noble and learned Lord relied on the Edinburgh declaration for his assertion. But such declarations as were made on the subject in Edinburgh do not have the force of Euro-law. Indeed, the legal adviser to the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation has advised that:
"Member states cannot by a cosy agreement in Council unscramble the effect of the treaty".
So it would seem that time could prove the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to be mistaken in his view of Euro-citizenship since it is not he, not Her Majesty's Government, not the British courts nor even Parliament itself which will be the final arbiter of the meaning and the implications of European citizenship. It will be the European Court, which alone has the power of interpreting the treaty.
It might appear to some that I am being too pernickety and legalistic. However, when one reads in the European Parliament working document that a proposal was:
"to transfer the concept of citizenship and nationality to the union level",
one cannot be too careful. We are entitled to demand cast-iron assurances as to the continued pre-eminence of British citizenship and to seek to protect British citizens, through these amendments, by giving them a right to opt-out of a citizenship which they may not wish to have and which imposes on them duties of which they know not or do not understand.
Now, of course, if the British people—and this will come later this week—had had an opportunity, or are now given the opportunity, to have a say as to whether they wish to be European citizens, that would be another matter. Without the opt-out proposed in the amendment, it is quite intolerable to impose on British people a citizenship, which may give them rights which they do not want, as well as imposing on them duties which they may well regret in the future. For all those reasons, I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I strongly support the amendments. Let us remind ourselves that the notion of citizenship of the Union was really no more than a last minute sudden whim of Senor Felipe Gonzalez. It is by no means central to the treaty. The rights that it provides are of minimal interest and utility to most people in this country, the exception perhaps being the implied right of resident non-United Kingdom citizens to vote for a Northern Ireland assembly, if and when one is set up. That could have unpredictable and possibly dangerous consequences.
As for duties, we must accept the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that not only are no duties specifically imposed by the provisions, but also that there is no way in which the European Court of Justice could find a future loophole through which unforeseen duties could be imposed. That being the case, the Minister will
48
doubtless be more than happy to give an assurance that no taxes will ever be imposed by the Union—taxes which would be binding on British citizens—and under no circumstances will there ever be conscription into a single European army which the leader of the Conservative MEPs in Strasbourg, Mr. Bill Newton Dunn, has enthusiastically forecast will be a reality perhaps in less than 20 years' time. Those two assurances from the Minister would put everyone's mind at rest.
Those of a suspicious turn of mind may wonder whether or not the real purpose of the provision is to soften up people for some scheme to flesh out the concept of duties with a view to imposing a number of tangible duties from 1996 onwards. However, leaving aside both the Trojan horse of duties—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that it is a Trojan horse—and relatively unexciting rights, most of which could be secured by reciprocal agreements whenever they are necessary, the main motive behind the concept of citizenship of the Union must be psychological: to gradually erode people's allegiance to their own nation and to divert their loyalties elsewhere.
A great many people will resent that political engineering. I have invented that phrase which is the equivalent of social engineering. They will wish to dissociate themselves accordingly from compulsory citizenship. Others will object on purely moral grounds. Even if there are no implied legal obligations to be loyal to the new Union—an assumption which may be open to doubt—they would nevertheless feel a moral obligation. They may feel that it is hypocritical and dishonest to become unwilling citizens of an entity to which they could profess no loyalty whatever.
Others still would describe themselves as passionate Europeans but resent the idea of citizenship being confined to inhabitants of a minority of European nations with Norwegians, Swedes, Finns, Swiss, Austrians, Slovenians and Hungarians regarded not so much as second-class citizens but almost as non-persons. The many tens of thousands of descendants of those Polish airmen, without whom we might never have won the Battle of Britain, living in this country will almost certainly resent being made compulsory citizens of a Union which includes Germany but which excludes Poland.
By all means let enthusiasts of citizenship of the Union—and we have heard from many of them in your Lordships' Chamber—adopt that citizenship if they prefer to do so. But to impose without choice that citizenship upon unwilling British subjects is intolerable. I believe that the right to renounce that citizenship is essential.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is interesting that the Government have remained totally impervious to the fact that some of us do not wish to be sold like cattle or sheep and made to be citizens of something else. We are quite happy to be citizens of what we are. I cannot see why we should be made to be citizens of something else. I believe that that is what people object to. It is a very simple concept, which the Government have not grasped. Noble Lords on the Labour Front Bench are grinning away happily

49
because they have not grasped it either. It seems to me a preposterous idea that we shall be bulldozed into becoming citizens of something of which we do not wish to be citizens.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to say a few brief words in opposition to the amendments which concern citizenship. That is one of the few matters on which I sought to address your Lordships in Committee on Amendment No. 2 and on an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, which concerned the Monarch. I give your Lordships an assurance that I shall not repeat anything that I said on either of those occasions because one does not wish to waste time. However, much of what was said then is relevant to the argument.
As has been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I accept that the Dutch draft referred to citizenship in the context of federalism but I cannot and must not enter into a semantic argument as regards what the Dutch, French or we mean by federalism. It is a word almost akin to "democracy", which means what you wish it to mean. I agree that one must he careful with words. Being careful with words, one cannot construe Article 8 in the context of what we understand on all sides of the House as a federal concept.
As regards citizenship of the Union, the rights referred to therein are defined; the duties are not defined. Those duties relate to duties imposed under the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act. Article 8 imposes no duties other than those that already exist. The amendments seek to rewrite that extant situation. They propose a kind of opt-out declaration, a renunciation of a situation in which we are already committed and involved.
That simply is not possible as regards existing duties. Your Lordships may well think that it is wholly irrelevant in respect of rights which there is no compunction whatever to exercise. For those reasons, I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendments.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the one problem that I have is that I do not believe that the Government attach the importance to the word "citizenship" which they should. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Chalker, who has been so excellent on many occasions, referred to it as an empty reference. I do not believe that it is. It is a matter about which the people of this country feel deeply. Noble Lords who have spoken have made it clear what is their reaction.
On one occasion my noble friend Lord Ferrers said that he did not believe that it added up to much because we already accept the terms of citizenship. He said that the name was merely tidying the whole thing up. The main point is that everybody applauded the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, because he is a very good wordsmith. He knows how to present a case and he is very persuasive. He has both the body language and the words which are extremely impressive. A great many people have quoted the noble Lord when he said so plausibly that he was a Scot by nationality, a British subject and a European
50
citizen by conviction. That is very good. It seems to separate things in a way which suggests that the word does not mean anything. The noble Lord is perfectly happy to be a citizen of Europe; indeed, his conviction leads him that way. That is fair enough. I congratulate him on being happy about what is being done.
However, what about the people who do not want to be citizens of Europe? It is not their conviction that they should be citizens of Europe; they are compulsorily being told by the terms of the treaty (over which they have never had any authority) that they will be looked upon as European citizens—which, when you look at all the legal powers entailed, would have a priority over being a British citizen.
I do not suppose that the matter will be put to a vote on this occasion, although that will have to be applied later. I should like to feel that my noble friend who is to reply will let it be seen that the Government recognise what the people of this country feel as regards their citizenship: they regard it, and those to whom they owe their duties and their responsibilities, as being fundamentally important.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, as the debate has continued it has become clearer that the European Court is to have the power to settle all the doubts that have been besetting us. But when it comes to interpret duties and citizenship, those concerned w ill not be influenced by the debates in your Lordships' House—indeed, not in the slightest way. They will be looking for what is in the Maastricht Treaty. As long as it is there we are exposing British citizens to a citizenship without knowing what it entails. No one in this Chamber, not even the noble Baroness who has been involved in such matters or indeed the Ministers, knows what duties are implied. The word is there for a reason. The European Court will take the sovereign right that it has to decide what citizenship means and what duties may be imposed thereby. I support the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, when I introduced an amendment on the subject in Committee, I said that what I particularly disliked about the proposal was the element of compulsion. Consequently, I support the present amendment. It seems to me that although the Commission said that the object of putting the provision in the treaty would be to encourage a feeling of involvement in European integration—which sounded harmless enough—I believe that the real object was put forward by those who are working for a European state. They want European citizenship gradually to replace national citizenship which they hope will wither away. I also mentioned the European Community passport and was put right by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who told me it was not a European passport but a European format, which of course I accept. However, I think that it is both an unnecessary and an undesirable element of the treaty.
I should like to mention one other aspect of citizenship that I raised separately in Committee. I refer to the position of the Sovereign. We had a good debate on the subject at that stage and received a very

51
helpful and comprehensive reply from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, for which I was most grateful. I continue to think it unfortunate that, when the Government negotiated the treaty, they did not arrange for the Sovereign and other Community heads of state to be exempt from the obligation to become citizens of the European union. I do not know whether they tried or whether they found it impossible to do so; we have not been told. In my view, it is a pity that that was not done.
My noble friend Lord Tonypandy and I subsequently had a helpful talk with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He told us that no future duties could be imposed on the Sovereign without new European legislation; that is, as I understand it, measures agreed by the Council which would become part of our national law. The noble and learned Lord also told us that he did not think that the European Court could interpret the treaty in a way which would impose new duties on the citizens of the union. That has been one of my main concerns. I was very glad to have the noble and learned Lord's reassurance on that point.
The noble and learned Lord also told us in Committee on June 30th that the Sovereign would be a citizen of the union. I believe that that was the first explicit statement to that effect by the Government. The noble and learned Lord made it clear in his remarks that the main safeguard for the Sovereign's position would be the impracticability of enforcement, either through Her Majesty's own courts or those in other parts of the Community. It does not seem to me very satisfactory for the Sovereign to rely solely on that safeguard to protect her from the imposition of inappropriate duties.
Therefore, I very much hope that when the noble Earl replies to the amendment he will be able to tell the House either that no further duties could be imposed on citizens of the union, by interpretation of the treaty by the European Court or amendment of the treaties, or, if at some future date new duties were to be imposed on the citizens of the European union, that the Government would bring such duties to the notice of Parliament. Perhaps he will also confirm that if such duties were to affect the Sovereign (even though they could not be enforced upon Her Majesty; a point which we fully understand) the Government will undertake to obtain the approval of Parliament. That would be helpful.
There is a further point that I should like to make about which I have given notice to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, though in fact it was very short notice. I understand that there was a case in 1990 which involved the Lord Advocate and the Dumbarton District Council. The judgment of the court laid down,
"that the Crown is not bound by any statutory provision unless there can somehow be gathered from the terms of the relevant Act an intention to that effect. The Crown can be bound only by express words or necessary implication".
That case concerned the Crown in its public capacity, but I imagine that there would be no difference in matters affecting the Crown in its private capacity. As far as I know, there is nothing in the Bill which
52
expressly applies the Article 8 provisions to the Sovereign. I do not know what the words "necessary implication" mean, but in any event it is not clear to me that they would necessarily apply. It seems possible that under that judgment Her Majesty the Queen will not after all be a citizen of the union. I should be most grateful if the noble Earl can tell me in his response what the Government think about that point. However, if he has not had sufficient time to consider the matter, which I fully understand, perhaps he will reply to me at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, during the course of our short debate the thought crossed my mind that during the reign of Mary Queen of Scots the Scots were given French citizenship and the French were given Scottish citizenship. That must have been nice for those few people who were able to risk the hazards of travelling between Scotland and France, including the hazard of being caught by English Royal Naval ships. However, that was followed by the introduction of a French army in Scotland. That must have made people reflect a little. I am not suggesting that a European French or German army will appear here in the immediate future but we might think about that matter a little.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I wish to reflect on the remarks made a short while ago by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who was worried about treaties being imposed on people against their will. That is a valid point and one of which I have considerable experience. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I am Scottish by nationality. However, I do not really wish, at the end of the day, to be a citizen of the United Kingdom. I am one and it does me no terrible harm but I am one because of a treaty which was imposed upon me without any discussion. The reason for that is quite plain in that the treaty was signed in 1707 and, like most noble Lords, I was not present at the time. However, the treaty was not agreed by the Scottish nation as a whole but only by a small minority. It became the law and I am, by force majeure as it were, a citizen of the United Kingdom. I would much rather be a citizen of Scotland than of the United Kingdom but that is outwith my powers at the moment.
The real point I wish to make is that, no matter what I prefer, being a citizen of the United Kingdom does me no harm. I remain a Scotsman. In the same way I am perfectly sure that becoming a citizen of Europe will do me no harm either—I shall still remain a Scotsman, or a "Britisher" if it is more appropriate so to describe myself. Despite the important constitutional matter relating to the Queen which I shall not touch upon, the movers of this amendment are making extremely heavy weather of something which we Scots have become used to over the past 300 years and the rest will become used to in such time as remains to them.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said that the people of this country feel deeply about the provisions of Article 8. I, too,

53
feel deeply about these provisions. Having read them thoroughly I am in favour of them. One should think of those people who are nationals of this country and who happen to be living and working in other parts of the European Community. They do not do so on a whim although there are many old age pensioners and others who choose to live in other parts of the European Community. Many of those people are working in other parts of Europe to help our economy, to improve the job situation and to benefit trade generally. Why should those people be deprived of the opportunity to vote in local elections and indeed in European elections when they may well be working in European institutions? The Treaty on European union quite clearly provides rights to the citizens of this country to participate in the political life of the country in which they happen to be residing. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to a draft Dutch treaty. There may have been many draft treaties. To suggest that taxes and prescription are all part of this. provision seems to me to be going entirely too far.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I believe that the fears of my noble friend Lady Hooper are somewhat unfounded as I react this amendment, which I support. It only provides for the opportunity for any British citizen to renounce citizenship of the Union. Anyone who wishes to continue to be associated with citizenship of the proposed Union can, as far as I can see, remain so. That is an individual decision. I see no difficulty there. However, I have a difficulty with one matter and I do not know whether my noble friend can answer it. Your Lordships and Members of another place give an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign. I accept that the position of the Sovereign is a tricky subject. The Sovereign as head of state represents the country. By giving an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign, one gives an oath of allegiance to one's country. One only has to think of the well known phrase "For Queen and country". I suggest that many of your Lordships have taken part in actions that served the best possible interests of this country. If people find that they are no longer citizens of this country but that they are citizens of the Union, they may have to ask themselves which comes first. One may have to ask oneself whether one should put one's allegiance to the Union first—about which one has not even been consulted, but which is a fact as it has been stated by some body in Brussels—or whether one should put one's allegiance to one's country first. That is a difficult matter to decide. Personally I would always give my allegiance to my country quite regardless of citizenship of the Union. Nevertheless, one may not be carrying out the intentions of Article 8.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, one thing that I have learnt from these absorbing debates is that it is impossible to get worked up about everything. When I first came across what I still regard as this European citizenship lark, my stock of indignation was already spent on the economic absurdities of this treaty. It is only as I have listened to the debates that a little indignation has welled up within me. It started at an earlier stage when the noble Lord, Lord
54
Thomson of Monifieth, said that he was proud to be a citizen of Scotland, of the United Kingdom and, now, of Europe. I begrudge him none of those three. He is a citizen of Scotland by choice and not by any legal definition. However, he can describe himself as a citizen of Scotland and a citizen of the United Kingdom by legal definition. He may also describe himself as a citizen of Europe. He needs no further permission from M. Delors and his friends. The noble Lord may, with oversoaring ambition, describe himself as a citizen of the world. One can understand that perhaps even less than the previous declarations. However, we must consider this matter as either one of the utmost triviality on the level of that kind of declaration of individuals, if I may say so, or as a matter of some importance.
My anxieties go back to the Second Reading when the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, who is an authority on all detailed aspects of the European conundrum, described what we are involved in; namely, a minefield. The European project is a minefield. The noble Lord suddenly discovered that he had opened a new minefield through the Stuttgart declaration of which most of us had been innocent. We had slept calmly in our beds at night not knowing that in 1983 a solemn undertaking was initialled, or signed, by the leaders of the European Economic Community—as I am still allowed to call it for a few more days—which anticipated developments of which we had not dreamt until the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, unveiled the matter. He was paid to understand such arcane mysteries whereas the rest of us have to get along as best we can.
The noble Lord explained to us that the seeds of Maastricht were planted there. They were barely noticeable. They were general statements. One might call them flower arrangements. But with cultivation and time they will come into full growth and fruit and become bushes and trees.
I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—whom we miss very much today, although I must warn your Lordships that he is joining us tomorrow on these matters—used the vivid example of pegs. He did not say that there was a conspiracy or a great plan. He said that since the Treaty of Rome a number of pegs have been inserted along the way. They look like little finger-posts and quite harmless. They read: "This way to European friendship"; "This way to a closer association"; "This way to political union". They are amiable and welcoming. But then one learns from the Community and the Commission that they were not signposts but solemn and binding commitments. Suddenly, great propositions are erected on those beginnings.
I believe that European citizenship is either complete nonsense or it is important. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, whose legal contributions I find difficult to understand fully, said that the duties of citizenship stem from the Treaty of Rome. He said that they are implicit in all that has gone before. We have to abide by these matters. Whether we are farmers or innocent citizens we are caught up in the need to abide by the law as it has unfolded. Very well. To the best of our ability we have abided by the law

55
without being called citizens. Why is citizenship suddenly embraced in this way? I feel distinctly uneasy about it.
I would wish to be regarded as a citizen of Europe. I have four splendid Anglo-French granddaughters. In my view, all their best features are French—after all, they are young ladies. I take great joy in visiting France, Germany or Italy, although perhaps less so on some of the fringes, and in feeling at home as a European. However, are we to say that the Hungarians, the Czechs or the Poles are not Europeans? Have we suddenly appropriated this label, this accolade, and conferred it on ourselves while the unwashed beyond the confines of fortress Europe are not regarded as Europeans? After all, Europeans are real people in law. They have rights, although no specific duties.
I believe that it is preposterous. In a sensible world, and without Whips around, we would vote it out. I do not know whether we shall vote on the matter. I shall go through the Lobby on this issue, although I have no great hope of uprooting this particular absurdity, and I reserve my main indignation for other issues.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mountgarret has raised an interesting query in my mind. Members of your Lordships' House swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown. If they become a commissioner I understand that they also swear an oath of allegiance to the European Community. Which oath takes precedence, because, having sworn an oath, it surely cannot be broken? If there is a conflict of interest between this country and the EC, which oath do they follow? Which duty do they follow?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I have listened to the debate during the past little while, tingles have been going up and down my spine with horror at what has been threatened in relation to my British citizenship let alone in relation to the Queen. I made the mistake, which in this debate is obviously fatal, of reading what the text of the treaty actually says that that citizenship involves. I decided that rather than the wicked fairy, it is more likely that it is the tooth fairy which has come.
The most important thing that I have discovered is that if I am a citizen of the Union, I can only be such because I hold the nationality of my member state. That does not seem to be the end of the world. I find that the rights conferred by the treaty will be conferred upon me, as will the duties. We have discussed the duties. My noble and learned kinsman the Lord Chancellor explained on 30th June—and I was listening even if it is clear from the repetition of the debate in the past 46 minutes that not many other noble Lords were listening—that the duties of the citizens of the European Union are those imposed by the mechanism of the 1972 Act and the Single European Act. Therefore, there is nothing very new in the duties contained in the Maastricht Treaty. They already exist and have already been accepted by this House and this country. Therefore, I do not believe that that is a great problem.
56
It should please the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that:
"Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move freely and reside freely within the territory of the Member States".
I do not think that there is anything horrific in that. It seems to me to be thoroughly reasonable. Citizens residing in other member states can vote in local elections. I believe that those of our fellow citizens of the UK who live and work in other member states and pay their local taxes might like to think that they could vote in local elections. The same is true of European elections.
When I read Part II of the treaty concerning citizenship of the Union, I do not see cause for the shock and horror to which we have been subjected in the past 47 minutes. To me it sounds like good common sense and the way forward to build a union between the peoples of the European Community and a wider European Community as that develops.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am certain that all noble Lords will recall that when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister first took over the stewardship of the United Kingdom he stated clearly that it was his ambition to roll back the frontiers of the state. That statement followed on from the vitally important principle enunciated on numerous occasions by my noble friend Lady Thatcher. I rejoiced when I heard those words, as I am sure did other noble Lords. At the time I had no idea that by the rolling back of the frontiers of this state he really meant the rolling forward of the frontiers of other states and their influence and power over his country.
I remember well, as I am sure other noble Lords will recall, that in order to demonstrate quite clearly that he had every intention of so doing, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister ensured that a great charter was published. He did not call it a great charter. Still less did he call it a Magna Carta. Unhappily, he did not even call it a statute of liberties, as I would have preferred. No, such is the importance that he attached to the concept of citizenship that he called it The Citizen's Charter. Yet my noble friends on the Front Bench pooh-pooh this whole concept of citizenship as if it does not matter.
During the Committee stage, noble friends who, unlike myself, are lawyers and learned in the law—I am not even a common lawyer—in particular my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, my noble friend Lady Elles and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, among others, made great play of the principle that only rights are set out within the Treaty of Union and not duties. All the time they forgot or chose to forget the fundamental principle in English jurisprudence that rights flow from duties, not the other way round. That is what Jeremy Bentham meant when he said that to talk of rights is nonsense on stilts. He is correct. One cannot conceive a de facto, still less a de jure, existence of a right unless it is perceived as flowing from the duty of other people not to harm you. That is the core of the matter.
Noble Lords, and lawyers who ought to know better, take comfort from the fact that the duties are not stated. Believe me, my Lords, they are: and within

57
the Treaty on Union. One has only to consider the appalling phrase in Article F. Needless to say it appears at the end. It is perhaps the most important duty that is imposed on every individual in this country. The article states:
"The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies".
In other words, the duty lies in that article for the Union to tax the individuals in this country. We have ever diminishing power over that policy. That is why the issue is so important.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, those who support the amendments put forward a group of amendments at Committee stage which, quite properly under the circumstances, had two alternative propositions: first, that there should be a voluntary renunciation of European citizenship; and secondly, that there should be no European citizenship for British subjects. Unfortunately they chose the wrong version to pursue to Report stage because they have chosen one which does not make sense. Much of what we have heard bears no relation whatever to the provisions of the treaty. The treaty is absolutely clear. There is a series of properly defined rights. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has spoiled them by reading them out, as I did in Committee. The provisions are relatively modest. They concern the right to vote in European and local elections. They involve the right to be represented, if necessary, in a third country by the consul of another member state when there is no consul of one's own member state available. Those are fairly inoffensive issues to which I do not believe many people object.
There are no duties. One can state it as clearly as that. The duties referred to in the article are those duties defined in the treaty; and there are no duties defined in the treaty. Therefore all that we have heard about the potentiality for more duties to be thought up by the European Court of Justice, with our citizenship in the United Kingdom eroded, is nonsense. If we are to spend 53 minutes discussing a matter which is so unrelated to the facts before us in the treaty, then I fear for the sanity of some of us as the next three days proceed.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry that the words "citizenship of the Union" or "citizenship of Europe" have caused such concern to your Lordships. I realise that they have caused anxiety. However, I shall try to allay that worry as best I can because I believe that it is misguided. I agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, as to where his loyalties and allegiances lie. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish that when one listened to some of the remarks on what will happen to us, they sent tingles up one's spine. I believe that some noble Lords have allowed their imagination and anxiety to run away with themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, stated that the first mention of citizenship was in the Dutch draft treaty; and that that was one of the bad aspects about the measure. That is not so. The draft treaty that was produced by the Luxembourg presidency, before the
58
Dutch draft treaty ever saw the light of day, already had positions on citizenship. The Dutch draft treaty was thrown out by all other member states. We should not deal with rejected proposals. We should concentrate more on what the present treaty states. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether he could have cast iron assurances from Her Majesty's Government about the continued pre-eminence of British citizenship. The noble Lord can have those assurances.
He was anxious, too, that Article 100A of the Single European Act had allowed all kinds of unspecified horrors to occur. Article 100A of the Single European Act has been extremely successful in bringing about the single market which is overwhelmingly in the United Kingdom's interest.
The noble Lord then stated that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor relied on the Birmingham declaration in saying that no allegiance to the European Community is created by Article 8. My noble and learned friend made his statement on the basis of what the treaty says. There is nothing in it to create an allegiance. We shall not be subjects of the Union; we are all subjects of Her Majesty. That is the point on which my noble friend Lord Mountgarret got himself into a tangle. My noble friend Lord Swinfen also said that he found the point interesting. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret stated that if we are no longer citizens of this country but of the Union, where will our loyalties lie? That is not the proposition. Of course we are citizens of the United Kingdom. The fact is that my noble friend is a citizen of the United Kingdom. He is a subject of the Queen. He owes allegiance to the Queen, No such allegiance is offered to the Community by being a citizen of the Union. All that does is to confer rights upon us as members of what one might describe as "the club". Citizenship of the Union is a different concept from citizenship of the United Kingdom and being a subject of the United Kingdom, and allegiance to Her Majesty. The concepts should not be confused.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked which oath takes precedent if one takes oaths. The commissioners swear no oath of allegiance to the Community. They swear to be completely independent in the performance of their duties and not to take instructions from any government or other body. There is no conflict between that and the oath of allegiance to the Queen.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, referred to the position of Her Majesty in the case of the Lord Advocate v. Dumbarton District Council. He wrote to my noble and learned friend this morning about that matter. The position of the Sovereign in relation to the citizenship provisions was carefully and comprehensively set out by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on 30th June. However, in view of the shortness of time since the noble Lord, Lord Moran, wrote to my noble and learned friend, the noble Lord will understand that I cannot give him a direct and comprehensive answer today. However, I recall the Lord Chancellor's point that any duties laid down upon individual citizens are so laid by powers given under the Treaty of Rome and become effective in United Kingdom law through the machinery of the

59
European Communities Act 1972. It is therefore to that Act which we must look to determine the position of the Sovereign in relation to any duties of citizens, and not to the present treaty and the Bill. I shall write to the noble Lord upon that.
Let us be clear about one thing. Union citizenship will not replace British citizenship. It confers an additional status. It does not imply, as some noble Lords have suggested, that the European Union will take on the guise or mantle of statehood; it will not. Despite its somewhat grand wording, the reality of the citizenship concept is very modest. Article 8 paragraphs 8a to 8e contain a number of useful but limited rights, not duties, which can in no way be compared with the rights of national citizenship. Indeed, they are rights which are only available to those who are in possession of nationality of a member state. Being a member of a European Community state is an essential precondition of the conferring of those rights.
We must be clear too that there are no duties included in those articles; nor do they provide any mechanism by which duties can be added. The only duty on an individual citizen is the one which he already has—that is, to obey the provisions of the law of his country which may or may not be affected by Community law. That issue has been extensively covered on a number of occasions. Frankly, the Government welcome the provisions. They can only be of advantage to members of the Community, and they can be of no disadvantage. The size of the majority at the end of your Lordships' debate at Committee stage suggests that your Lordships took that view also.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 both seek to provide arrangements for any United Kingdom national to renounce his or her Union citizenship. I remind your Lordships that no one is under any obligation to exercise those rights which have been conferred upon them. No one is compelled, for example, to reside in another member state, but anyone who wishes to do so will be able, if they so choose, to vote in local and European parliamentary elections. Many people would regard that as being an advantage.
Similarly, no one is forced to petition the European Parliament or the ombudsman or to apply to the consulate of another member state, but many people would regard those as advantages. They would regard them as facilities and nothing other than a positive advantage.
Union citizenship is not in any way a replacement for national citizenship. On 22nd June I said that Union citizenship has no relevance to anyone who is not a citizen of a European Community state. Only nationals of a member state can enjoy its benefits. It is not possible to renounce Union citizenship without renouncing national citizenship. There are European Community rights which are enjoyed at present by members of the United Kingdom. For example, people can go to live in other European Community countries now and establish themselves in other countries. All that Article 8a does is to confirm what is at present a practice and a right. Amendment No. 6
60
seeks specifically to exempt United Kingdom nationals who opt out of Union citizenship, if they are able to, from the duties which are mentioned in Article 8. But those duties only refer to the duties which are incumbent upon all nationals of member states. That is, to obey the provisions of Community law which refer to individuals.
Most European Community law refers to governments and to public bodies, but there are some provisions which affect individuals. One might wonder what those provisions are. For example, there is the toy safety directive which obliges retailers not to sell dangerous toys. I am sure that that would have a devastating impact on my noble friend Lord Onslow.
Another example is the tachograph directive. That requires road hauliers and their drivers to use and maintain machines which keep records of hours and distance travelled, for reasons of their own and others' safety. It would simply not be possible, I suggest, nor desirable for nationals of member states to be able to exempt themselves from such duties. I am sure that your Lordships agree that those are not exactly earth-shattering duties which will he imposed upon every single member of the Community, to the total detriment of all concerned.
However, we agreed to abide by the provisions of the Treaty of Rome way back in 1973 when the United Kingdom joined the Community. We cannot in honour try to crawl out of those obligations now. The simple position is that, as members of the European Community, we all already have certain rights and duties, as we do as members of the United Kingdom. By virtue of the Treaty of Rome, as amended by the Maastricht Treaty, we will all have additional rights as citizens of the European Union, but not additional responsibilities.
Noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment say that they do not want those rights. To that, my reply is that they are under no obligation whatever to exercise those rights. Noble Lords then say, as my noble friend Lord Onslow, said, "What's more, we don't want to be contaminated by the thought of any additional rights. Let us be allowed to opt out". I think my noble friend said that they did not want to be treated like cattle. My reply to that is that one cannot opt out of a fact. The fact is that we are members of the United Kingdom. The fact is that the United Kingdom is a member of the European Community. The fact is that we are, ipso facto, members of the European Community. Both confer rights, both confer duties. We acceded to the duties of the Community when we acceded to the Treaty of Rome in 1973. All that the citizenship articles do is give us additional rights. One cannot opt out of a right, one just has the right not to exercise that right.
For those reasons, I think that the amendments are unnecessary and unworkable and I suggest that noble Lords do not approve them.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, is he in a position to give the unequivocal guarantees for which I asked him? That is that no new form of new taxation nor, in the long term, conscription will ever be imposed upon us in consequence of the new form of citizenship.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the citizenship provisions which are suggested today do not carry those obligations at all.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thought that I heard my noble friend Lord McIntosh say that he doubted the sanity of the people who put down these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, not at all. I feared for my own sanity, which is much more fragile than that of my noble friend!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am glad that I did not hear him say it—and, of course, I concur with him about his own sanity.
This has been an extremely interesting debate. The fact that it has taken one hour and seven minutes so far indicates the anxiety that is felt by the House and its Members about the citizenship clauses. It is right that we should have debated them again in detail. I do not intend to reply to everything said; but the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, did not wish to enter into a semantic argument about what "federalism" means. I point out to him that the Prime Minister thought it was important enough to embark upon a semantic argument with the other 11 heads of state or heads of government, to the extent that the word "federalism" was removed. So the Prime Minister thought that it was important and I also thought that it was important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said that she wanted to be a European citizen. That is fair enough, and she is getting her way under the treaty. The people who are not getting their way are those who do not wish to be European citizens. So she is all right, Jack! But what about the rest of us? She has a vote as to whether or not she can be a European citizen. I sincerely hope that on Wednesday she will join me in the Lobby voting to allow every other British citizen to have a vote as to whether or not they should be citizens of the European Union. I shall look for her in the "ayes" Lobby.
My noble friend Lord Howie of Troon is not in his place; but he said that being a citizen of the United Kingdom had never done him any harm. Hooray! Is it not nice to have a Scot suggesting that being a member of the British union never did him any harm? It is good for that to be put on record, since so many Scots say that it has done them much harm.
In winding up, the noble Earl said that we need not worry about these provisions; that they were innocent and innocuous. If they are innocent and innocuous, I do not really know why they are there. As I said in my opening remarks, they are not necessary for the treaty itself. The reason why some of us are suspicious is that we have seen pegs before on which other handbags and so on have been hung unexpectedly.
I did not say that the Dutch draft was the first draft to mention citizenship. I was perfectly aware that Luxembourg first did that. But I am very glad to have the assurance that British citizenship remains pre-eminent. I hope that that will always be so. I hope that the noble Earl will join us in opposing any further treaties which will lessen that pre-eminence or impinge
62
upon it. I am glad to hear from him that European citizenship does not imply—and I hope that he also means will never imply—allegiance to the European Union. Indeed, it would have been nice to have that assurance from him and the assurance that no further obligations will be placed upon us.
The noble Earl mentioned the toy directive as being one of the directives which arose from our duties as citizens, or members, of the European Community. My guess is that the toy directive might have put some people out of business. I do not know about that. What about the hygiene directives which put so many abattoirs out of business? What about that kind of directive which has destroyed thousands of businesses? I would have thought that that kind of directive would make people pause about being citizens of Europe if that is the type of duty that is placed upon them.
However, this has been a very interesting debate. I have listened very carefully to what the noble Earl has said. I have taken his assurances that the word "citizen" does not mean anything very great; that it is innocuous, and that we will owe no allegiance to anyone other than Her Majesty. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross Lord Harris of High Cross moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 1. insert the following new clause:
("GATT
.—(1) Her Majesty's Government shall, immediately after ratification of the Treaty on European Union, take such steps as are open to them to call for the conclusion by the Community under Articles 228 and 238 of Title II of the Treaty on European Union of an agreement in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
(2) Her Majesty's Government shall take such further steps to encourage the formation of such agreement as either House of Parliament may by Resolution direct.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 is another amiable and helpful proposal, rather like the first, on the reform of the common agricultural policy. I believe that if we were to vote on this amendment and if each of us put aside party politics, ignored the Whips and voted on our individual judgment and individual conscience (for those who have conscience left), I believe that the amendment would be passed by a massive majority.
What does the amendment say? Incidentally, it is a touch hypothetical. It begins:
"Her Majesty's Government shall, immediately after ratification of the Treaty on European Union,"—
that is hypothetical—
"take such steps as are open to them to call for the conclusion … of an agreement in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade".
I was trying to think of what could be said on this issue that was new when I came across a statement by the Prime Minister, Mr. Major, that I thought was worth bringing before the House. In the introduction to the directors' year book, he says:
"We must … look beyond the Community … Free trade must be a world-wide concept for it will do more than anything else to revive the world's economies".
Economists have been known to disagree among themselves. Since we have no closed shop and we abide by no Whips, I am free to reveal a secret; namely, that some practitioners of the black art have been known on occasion to talk nonsense. There is sometimes even a slight touch of that coming from a quarter not unadjacent to the Labour Front Bench—but not on this occasion. If there is one issue on which there is consensus approaching unanimity among economists, it is on the merits of free trade in advancing economic prosperity for all participants. I have said before (I hope not recently in this House) that a policy of free trade is in the long run the nearest that we have to a panacea for eradicating world poverty.
In his great work, Adam Smith showed that the prime cause of the wealth of nations, which he set out to investigate, was nothing more than the division of labour. It is, after all, no more than commonsense practice—the everyday practice of each of us, that we specialise in doing what we can do best and exchange the proceeds for goods and services which others can produce better. International free trade is simply the wider manifestation of the territorial division of labour between countries with differing climates, resources, habits, skills, capital and other natural or acquired comparative advantages. It is through the discovery procedure of competition that international trade exerts a continuing pressure to spread efficiency, innovation, investment and rising standards of living.
When politicians and others who should know better dismissively repeat the old saw that the European Economic Community never was a mere free-trade area, they reveal in my view a serious failure to grasp the potency of Adam Smith's fundamental teaching. As is well known, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was launched after the war to negotiate the multilateral reduction or removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers to this mutually beneficial enlargement of human freedom and well being. Since the war it has already contributed more to prosperity than all the foreign aid, industrial policies and fancy schemes for which party men like to take credit. The further expansion of this beneficent process of trade can do more than all the malignant nonsense of social charters, level playing fields and other flat-earth economics beloved by Citizen Delors.
Now at last, spurred on by the scourge of unemployment, caused itself by almost indiscriminate interventionism, the Tokyo Summit has committed the leading trading nations to treating the completion of the seven year-old Uruguay Round as their top priority. We must take them seriously on their own assertion. This amendment would not even delay the passage of the Maastricht Treaty, since it would come into effect after the treaty had been passed and it would insert a condition into the Bill that we would need to negotiate, by whatever means are possible, a completion of the GATT round.
For my money its main purpose would be to serve notice on France, as a major protectionist stumbling block to early agreement, that the passing of the treaty will land it in the dock which is usually reserved for the
64
United Kingdom. I am certain that there will be almost unanimous agreement that we regard it as unthinkable that the GATT round should be lost. That would threaten the world with a resumption of the beggar-my-neighbour restrictions of the 1930s. Therefore my noble friends and I believe that the acceptance by the Government of this helpful amendment would demonstrate that Britain at least takes seriously the commitment to free trade enshrined in the original Treaty of Rome. I beg to move.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, with this amendment has trailed his conscience as well as mine and the consciences of all your Lordships, I should like to declare my position. I am wholly for GATT. I have been for GATT for a long time. I have even had some experience of working within it under my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft long ago. I am as intent upon the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round as he is. Earlier this afternoon we heard what the Prime Minister had been able to achieve to that end and the importance that he attaches to it.
What is a clause like this doing in this Bill? The Bill is about provisions consequential upon Maastricht. The conclusion of a GATT deal has nothing whatever to do with Maastricht. It was important long before then. It was important when my noble friend Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister, and it remains extremely important. I do not see any reason to delay the passage of this Bill by inserting in it a quite unnecessary new clause.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence as I reply very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. I venture to suggest that it is clear that the satisfactory conclusion of the GATT agreement to a very large extent depends on what France regards as in its national interest. France will have to judge that national interest within a new context: the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. Those provisions either have an effect on the economies of Europe including France, or they do not do so. If they do not have any effect on the economies of Europe and their conduct, there is no point in having the Maastricht Treaty at all.
As I understand the position, France is entitled under the Luxembourg compromise, if it so wishes, to stick on the common agriculture policy as vital to France's national interest. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, confirmed only the other evening, the Luxembourg compromise still applies to the United Kingdom. Therefore we cannot deny to France what we would wish to have the power to do ourselves.
What we have to do—this is where the amendment proposed is so apposite—is to use all means of persuasion, including our activities in the European Council and other diplomatic contacts that we have with France through a variety of sources, to persuade France that in the main France's national interest now lies in its manufacturing industry, which would be greatly advanced if the GATT agreement were successful. In the case of France it is a balance between

65
its agriculture interests, which have political implications, and indeed the success of its manufacturing industry. I submit that the amendment gives encouragement to the Government, through whatever channels they consider open to them in Council or outside it and within the context of Maastricht, so to persuade France in order that the GATT arrangements may finally be concluded.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, since my name is on the amendment, I rise lest silence be thought to indicate that I no longer support what I said at Committee stage.
The amendment is worded in a different way from the one that I moved at Committee stage but it comes to the same point. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, is right. Maastricht has nothing to do with GATT. It has nothing whatever to do with anything that is of any use to this country or its economy. It is another stage in the subjugation of this country to a system which in its essence is wholly opposed to the idea of free trade.
I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, because we have agreed so much; but I think he is in error in believing that it is only agriculture in France that is protectionist. Unlike the industry of this country, French industry has been built up over the centuries under a system of protection. The European Community was designed to fortify that system. Therefore, I hope that there will be support for the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Aldington is so mesmerised by the words of the Bill that he will not raise his eyes to look at the surrounding circumstances in which the Bill has been produced. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has done so. En strict terms, if the words in the European Treaty and subsequent treaties had been observed, as the theorists said they would be, there would be no need for an amendment such as this one. If the theories, as they were put in both Houses of Parliament years ago and subsequently, had worked in practice as we were told they would do, it is perfectly true that this amendment would be out of place in this Bill.
But circumstances have not worked out as the theorists told us that they would. The evidence that we have to take into account is not the meaning of the words in the Bill; it is the spirit in which the provisions have been applied or attempted to be applied. We do not have to read only the Bills and statutes with which we are intimately connected; it is not a bad idea occasionally to read the newspapers and general reports that are available to see how other Members of the Community react to many of the provisions. I am perhaps in a slightly better position than many others because for five years I sat in the European Parliament and had a chance to see the reactions of individual Members of that parliament.
I can tell my noble friend Lord Aldington that the general atmosphere in which this treaty will have to be applied, if ever the Bill becomes an Act, will have to take into account the fact that the French—and I believe other Members of the European Community
66
—have been a danger in coming to an arrangement within GATT which would be in our interest and the interest of Europe and the world. There is no doubt about that. Their inclinations are not to give support on issues that would suit us and the rest of the Community, if that does not happen separately to support their own interests even more.
Therefore, in this Maastricht Bill, so far as we are in any position to do so, we must give an instruction not only to France but to the other Members that we expect them not only to adhere to the written terms, but to apply them in the spirit of what was intended. The noble Lord, Lord Aldington, may think that it is not necessary to put the amendment into the Bill because in strict terms it is not in keeping with the spirit of the Bill itself. But if you add it to the circumstances surrounding what has happened over the past 22 years we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for trying to insert an instruction which will see to it that not only the literal meaning of the words of the Bill are applied but that the spirit is also dealt with in a proper and unselfish way.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I rise simply to offer a word or two of support to the modest complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. We have become so accustomed in these debates to amendments that have very little to do with the Treaty of Maastricht and the Bill that we have almost given up in terms of any kind of complaint. However, I was extremely glad to see one thing in the amendment. It urges Her Majesty's Government "immediately after ratification of the Treaty on European Union" to take certain steps. It appears to concede that the treaty will be ratified. And the sooner, the better.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I, too, may remind your Lordships that we are dealing with a Bill intituled,
"An Act to make provision consequential on the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7th February 1992".
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Pvlonifieth, said that the amendment has little to do with that. It actually has nothing to do with that at all. I assumed that within our rules, which are always somewhat of a mystery to me, it was still acceptable to have an amendment of this kind. But for the life of me I cannot see what it has to do with the Act at all.
Having said that, I do not in any way disagree with what is in the amendment. I do not back away from free trade. My credentials on this matter compare fairly favourably with almost anyone in your Lordships' House. Of course we favour free trade; of course free trade is central to, I hope, all our economic policies. The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, was pulling my leg about support, or lack of' support, for her right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I certainly do not feel that he needs written into an Act of Parliament any encouragement to do what is in the amendment. It appears to me that he is working as hard as he can to move things forward with respect to GATT and the Uruguay Round.
I do not mind the subject coming up so that some of us can say that we approve of free trade, but that is about it so far as I can see. I deplore a little the

67
attacks on France. I do not doubt that the French look out for their national interest. It may well be that on some aspects of this they are rather difficult. But I am not aware—at least I hope it is not the case—that we do not look out for our national interest. I am certain that if we were to read the French press we would occasionally see adverse remarks about our country holding things back here or there.
I do not want anyone to misunderstand—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, did not want anyone to misunderstand him—that we are wholly in support of negotiating as strongly and as quickly as we can on the GATT agreement. I am perhaps a little less optimistic than some about what was achieved at Tokyo but I certainly want to believe that it will all be highly successful. All I say is that if we can have an amendment of this kind I have 101 other things that I would like to put down for the Government to do immediately as well, except that I do not feel that your Lordships would like me to do that. I hope that, having made the point about free trade, we can leave this one alone and get down to rather more serious business.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I think that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, should be grateful to people who put down amendments of this kind. After all, they enable the House to have a discussion about important matters and indeed to get on record the Government's point of view. If the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, had had his way we would not have discussed this Bill at all and he would have given the Maastricht Treaty its okay on the nod. That is not a good parliamentary practice.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is unfortunate that at Report stage, when we are entitled to speak only once, attacks should be made on my noble friend in that way. It is grossly unfair to suggest that we would have played no part in any sensible discussion on the Maastricht Bill. If, for instance, I were to put down an amendment on the Arts Council, on playing fields, on the size of postage stamps, presumably, under the arrangements that we have on this Bill, it could be debated. It is extremely foolish for the House to go down this path.
Lord Elton: My Lords, arising out of that, I rise only to make to your Lordships a point that I have made before. It seems to me that proceedings on this Bill not only at this stage but at a previous stage have been entirely untypical of the way this House normally conducts its business. I think that it would be a suitable matter for the Procedure Committee to look at the record after the Bill has passed, and, God willing, received Her Majesty's consent, and consider which of our proceedings over the Bill should be disregarded as precedents for our future proceedings, particularly for the benefit of noble Lords who are not normally in the custom of attending the House and who may regard what they see on these great occasions as being typical of our normal way of conducting business.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I note very carefully what my noble friend Lord Elton says about referring the proceedings on this Bill to the Procedure Committee. I am sure that the Chief Whip will want to look at this as will the Leader of the House and noble Lords in other parts of the House.
The amendment is not necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, generously paid tribute to the Prime Minister's efforts over the GATT round. I have to say that in many, many years of trying to seek ways forward to open up world trade I have never known an individual so committed to doing that as our own Prime Minister of the present day. The amendment is not necessary. Not only has the United Kingdom played a very active role in the Community but also with third parties to seek to secure a successful conclusion to the Uruguay Round negotiations and also to ensure that preliminary agreements reached—notably the EC-US accord on GATT agriculture—are not reopened.
The Government will give and are already giving their full support to the Commission's efforts to negotiate a balanced and comprehensive outcome to the Uruguay Round, one which will benefit the United Kingdom, the Community and the world economy generally. We have seen welcome progress made by Ministers from the Community, the United States, Japan and Canada in their discussions in Tokyo. We hope that that progress will mean that we make further progress in the multinational negotiations shortly to be resumed in Geneva. Certainly, there are elements of a deal on market access. That is very good news, as my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal made clear earlier this afternoon.
The Government have long argued that a successful completion of the Uruguay Round would make a large contribution to world prosperity and to ending the current world recession. It will be of particular assistance to the developing world. Many of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, said in moving the amendment about opening up world trade I would agree with entirely. But I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and I are at one that the amendment is not needed to stiffen our resolve. Her Majesty's Government and other governments are doing all they can to complete the round successfully. There is no way in which the many suggestions, helpful as they may seem to those who have made them in the debate, would assist us any further. We have to be ready with our partners in the Community and with our other partners outside the Community to take all those steps—and we are ready to do so—to have a successful conclusion to the round.
I know that there are some Members of your Lordships' House, including the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who are very worried about what our friends across the Channel might do. Of course, any country will look to its own needs, but I believe that in looking to our needs as a community and as part of the community of the wider world, we are getting very much better at not finding a need to stand out against decisions. We shall still retain that right. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, if we wish to

69
retain the right to stand out against decisions we must allow other members of the Community to do likewise.
I am encouraged that there is so much unanimity about a successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round, but I am not encouraged in the slightest by this amendment because it is truly not needed. Therefore, I urge your Lordships to resist it.
7 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, it has not been a wholly uninteresting debate. It is quite impressive that there is a larger measure of agreement on this kind of issue than is ever apparent outside the Chamber. It is not necessarily true in France, Spain or Italy that there will be that degree of consensus in those countries on the fundamental and wide-ranging benefits of free trade. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, found himself in total agreement with me. He made some amiable references to France which I thought might be an opening hid for his candidacy as a citizen of Europe and perhaps the mayoralty of an attractive French village which he might have his eye on.
We drew a cheep from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Although it was a protest, I cannot really judge whether it was merited or not. I do not accept the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, or those of the noble Baroness who replied that this matter has nothing to do with the Bill. If we had a magic wand which saw this Bill safely through this House and the other place but had attached to it a codicil saying, "In passing this Bill we have agonised about the completion of the GATT round", that would not be wholly unimpressive to our European partners who treat these matters rather more casually.
I cannot judge myself the threats which we have had about the matter being referred to the Procedure Committee for breach of our rules of conduct. I am advised that many of us would welcome serious consideration by the Procedure Committee of this matter because we persist in regarding it as an issue of some importance for the future of our democratic system. We are not disposed to apologise for detaining the House for an hour or two or even a day or two, in giving further thought to the matter. We can almost hear the dinner bell. I believe that we have agreed to withdraw the amendment. I thank those who have taken part in the discussion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begins again at eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 6) Order 1993
7.4 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 21st June be approved [35th Report front the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that on 24th June the House considered five emergency orders made on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Their purpose was to ban fishing for certain types of shellfish in the waters around Orkney and a small area of sea off Wick. Today's debate concerns a further two such orders.
The orders before the House today seek your Lordships' approval for emergency orders to ban fishing for, variously, mussels, queens, scallops and razor clams in specific areas. This is due to a build-up of the naturally occurring toxin, paralytic shellfish poison, or PSP, as it is known. The decision to make the orders was based on test results from our PSP monitoring programme which were over the internationally agreed action level of 400 units. Our aim in making the ban is to ensure effective protection of the public from PSP toxin with the minimum disruption to the shellfish market.
I have arranged for copies of maps showing the areas in question to be available in the Library. One order concerns an area in Orkney and the other an area of open sea off the north east of Scotland. The bivalve molluscs to be prohibited in each of the closure areas are determined generally by test results for the individual species in a given locality. In the Orkney case, Order No. 6 adds razor clams to the species already prohibited by Order No. 2: these were mussels, queen scallops and scallops. This resulted from a level of over 2,000 units in samples of razor clams taken from the Sanday area.
The second order with which we are concerned today is the one concerned with a rather larger area of open sea to the north east of the Scottish mainland. In the latter part of June high levels of PSP (between 1,500 and 2,700 units) were detected in scallops at a variety of locations between Fair Isle and the Moray Firth. It would have made no real sense to close only small areas around the highly affected locations that we had detected and ignoring the intervening waters because algal blooms are not static. Accordingly, the area prohibited by Order No. 4 was extended over a considerable stretch of water from the Moray Firth northwards to the Fair Isle. The species affected by Order No. 7 were mussels, scallops and queens.
Following the making of Order No. 7 a number of vessels moved south to the grounds east of Montrose amid some uncertainty as to whether the closure area would be extended southwards to this area, also within a short timescale. Some vessels did then pull out for fear of losing the value of any catches that they took. I understand that by late June there were few vessels remaining in this area. I am pleased to be able

71
to report, however, that despite one or two isolated higher results, the levels found in most samples in this area have been relatively low and extension of the closure area into the area of Montrose has not been necessary.
The closed areas and the prohibited species are being monitored regularly so that the orders will only remain in force for as long as each one is necessary and no longer. I must emphasise that our aim in taking this action is—as it was with the earlier five orders—to ensure effective protection of the public from PSP toxin with the minimum disruption to the shellfish market. The orders will be monitored individually and in each case will be revoked as soon as the results of continued sampling and medical and scientific advice indicate that it is safe to do so. Meantime, there has been no significant downturn in toxin levels since the orders were made. Regrettably, therefore, these two orders, and the five which preceded them, are still essential to the protection of public health. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 21st June be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we must all be grateful for the long and detailed statement which the Minister has made. We can have no complaint at all that these precautions and orders are put in place. I also thank the Minister for having provided earlier some maps of the area which show how widespread the problem is. Perhaps the Minister can answer a question. There is a feeling that the disease has spread more than on previous occasions. It has nothing to do with the Government and all their problems. This is a natural problem. I may be wrong and it is perhaps only a case of thinking that yesterday was better than today and that last year was better than this year. However, perhaps the Minister could let us know if there is a particular reason why we have seven of these orders this year, some of which encompass fairly wide areas. Is the problem more serious this year? Is something fundamental causing the growth?
This is a highly specialised matter and I do not expect the Minister to understand the details, but I hope that he will be able to shed some light on the problems that I have raised. After taking advice, I hope that he will be able to give me a more accurate and scientific evaluation of whether the incidence is greater than normal and, if so, whether anything can be done about it. Other than that, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, records of this phenomenon go back as far as 1814. It is very much a seasonal matter. In fact, two years ago we had 14 such orders. The noble Lord has asked me a scientific question. I shall do my best to find out the answer and shall write to him about it. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 7) Order 1993
7.11 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 25th June be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (International Co- operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1993
7.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th May be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1993, and to speak to the draft Confiscation of the Proceeds of Drug Trafficking (Designated Countries and Territories) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1993.
The orders before your Lordships today show the Government's continuing commitment to fight against drug trafficking and to deprive those involved of the proceeds of their activities. To combat the international nature of drug trafficking nowadays, we require considerable co-operation between countries. The orders represent a further extension of the network of countries with which we now have reciprocal agreements to co-operate in tracing, freezing and confiscating the proceeds of drug trafficking.
The primary function of the orders is to extend the list of designated countries in the principal orders made in 1991. This list was previously extended by amendment orders made in June last year. The present orders bring the total number of designated countries to almost 100.
The draft orders, like the previous orders, are made under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. The orders replicate the safeguards built into the earlier orders to protect the rights of the accused or convicted persons and the rights of third parties who may be affected by the enforcement process. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th May be approved [32nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing these orders before your Lordships House. It goes without saying—but I shall say it—that this side of the House welcomes any legal measures to improve legal co-operation in tracking down the so-called "drug barons" in the first place and, on conviction, in denuding them of the proceeds of their evil trade which brings misery, ill health and even prison to those who become involved with them as clients. The drug trade also leads to a great deal of upset for individuals and their families and to unnecessary deaths.
The recent and spectacular hauls of drugs by the authorities indicate that international co-operation is working in a practical sense. The two orders add another arrow to the how of the forces of law and order and show the importance of international co-operation. Long may it continue.
The ideal world will be one in which those who lead this massive and evil industry find themselves behind prison bars and, when they are released, find that what awaits them is as barren and as bleak as the prison cells in which they were deservedly incarcerated. These measures will assist in achieving that objective.
It is an unfortunate aspect of drug trafficking that too few of the main perpetrators are caught. It is usually the middle man who is caught and put into prison. No doubt, however, as international co-operation becomes more sophisticated, we shall get to the top of the tree one day and finally bring the trade to an end.
The fight against drug traffickers is, and has been, relentless. Anything that is done through legislation by Parliament to catch such people will receive the full support of the Opposition. It might be irrelevant when dealing with these orders to say this, but I am bound to say that the progress which has been made recently has been spectacular in terms of confiscating large hauls and locating their whereabouts in the first place. That would not be possible but for the hazardous, courageous and meticulous work of the investigating authorities and those who assist them. This country owes them a great debt. Tributes of the highest order should be paid to them for their work to date.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend how these excellent measures are affected by the inter-governmental arrangements within the European Community which will come into effect when Maastricht is ratified. Do the orders relate to countries within the European Community as well as to other countries? Are they reciprocated by other countries? Could my noble friend answer those questions in a nutshell or are they too complicated to be answered briefly?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no, those questions are not too big to be answered now. About 100 countries are already designated. Our major partners within the European Community, such as France, Germany and Italy, are already signed up in bilateral arrangements with them. It is important to appreciate that following the break-up of the Soviet
74
Union it has been necessary to extend the relationships that we have had in the past. The order covers countries that were formerly parts of the Soviet Union. Not all such areas are covered, but a significant number now are, including: the Ukraine. As my noble friend will appreciate, it is a matter of considerable significance not only that we should have these arrangements in place in Europe but, as is clear from the order, that we should have such relationships with South America also.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Confiscation of the Proceeds of Drug Trafficking (Designated Countries and Territories) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1993
7.18 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th May be approved [32nd Report .from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.19 to 8 p.m.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Powers and term of office of the Commission
(". Within 12 months from the coming into force of this Act Her Majesty's Government shall formulate proposals for reviewing—

(a) the new areas of competence of the Commission in 1996; and

(b) the term of office of members of the Commission under Article 158 of Title II on the Treaty on European Union.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, before proceeding with the amendment I should like to offer the House an apology for an error that unfortunately crept in to a short contribution I made earlier this evening. When discussing the CAP, I ventured to suggest that it was covered by Paragraphs 35 to 47 of the Treaty of Rome. I should have said Paragraphs 38 to 47. I trust that the House will accept the correction.
In considering the amendment, and the atmosphere within which it may possibly be discussed, I should like to refer briefly to some remarks that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who I see is no longer with us, to the effect that the proceedings that have taken place to date were not to his liking and that a reference should be made to the Procedure Committee as to the way in which the House has proceeded.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, that is irrelevant to the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, noises aside again, as usual, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I was only saying, if the noble Lord will forgive me, that is wholly irrelevant to the amendment that the noble Lord is supposed to be proposing.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, I propose to proceed in my own way—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, subject to the opinion of the House.
Lord Bruce of Donington:—a custom to which the noble and learned Lord himself is well addicted, and often from a sedentary position. That only goes to show what happens when the Government Front Bench gets together with the Opposition Benches. The first thing that occurs to them, after the debate has gone on for any length of time, is to conspire against the Back-Benchers by having the whole proceedings referred to the Procedure Committee. The House should be warned that Back-Benchers are likely to take an unfavourable view of any such reference, and will probably make themselves vocal accordingly.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for giving way. Is he aware that many of us would welcome such a reference so that we could then put the position and the Procedure Committee could find a better and more satisfactory way of discussing future treaties?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I suggest that we continue with the business.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this is our business.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: No it is not, my Lords.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, yes it is.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. The amendment has been moved—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, it has not yet been moved.
Lord Bruce of Donington:—not just with a serious intent, but with its main purpose to reveal to those Members of the House who may not have had the opportunity to examine the Maastricht Treaty in detail—indeed, some members of the Government themselves have had some difficulty in obtaining copies and reading it—and to draw the attention of the House to the powers that the Commission will have under the new treaty. I realise that I am treading on dangerous ground, because I am referring to the Commission's powers.
76
We have in the House five distinguished former Commissioners. We have the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Richard, and, of course, although he is not in his seat at the moment, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. Since I am going to make some observations about members of the Commission, I wish to say at the outset that I exclude from any comments that I may make about the existing Commission all five of the former Commissioners who are in the House. They could all, had they so chosen, have retired from public life on the pensions that are attributed to their office in the Commission, but instead they have taken the public-spirited attitude of coming here and giving us their time and the benefit of their wisdom. So I trust that any remarks that I may make about the present Commission will not affect them in any way. I affirm straightaway that they are kindly, gentle people who have no thought of obtaining more power for themselves, or more power for the Commission, or of doing anything that could remotely be termed unfriendly to the governments of member states.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has arrived. He is the most distinguished of them all, for whom I shall reserve some special comment in view of the fact that he was also a Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Government of which I was, and still remain, a supporter.
All powers of the Commission which are taken in the Maastricht Treaty as fresh powers, are of course relative. Weak people can be strong if those with whom they are in contact are weak. I have already explained to your Lordships that through no fault of their own members of the governments of member states—I am talking about the Ministers of all member states—are subject to severe limitations as to their abilities to govern because, of course, they are constrained by their own physical needs in that they need a certain amount of sleep; they need to feed; they need to exercise; and the amount of time that they can spend on the affairs of their own ministries and countries are strictly limited. It must be because—God bless them!—they are all human.
In the same way, when it comes to imposing an additional load upon Ministers of dealing with international affairs which, on their own, are a considerable responsibility—particularly for the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister—and when it comes to dealing with EC affairs, the amount of time that they can spend examining and understanding what is happening around them is limited. It must be.
It is common knowledge that for a number of Ministers, when they go to Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg for meetings, in many cases the first time that they read their papers, upon which they are supposed to talk and which are there for their guidance, is on the aeroplane or in their hotel rooms. That places the Commission in a strong position. I am not saying that it deliberately chooses that position, but, after all, members of the Commission are appointed. They are not elected by anyone. They do not have any constituency chairmen to bother them. They do not even have any Ministers above them to

77
bother them. They are not immediately faced with the threat of dismissal as on the night of the long knives, or anything of that kind. There they are. They are secure. They have the direct purpose of furthering the interests of the European Community.
There is bound to be a temptation—I put it no higher than that—not to be averse to getting more power for themselves and the offices which they occupy. Nature abhors a vacuum. If the Council of Ministers and those attached to it are not fully able to assimilate everything that happens or, for the sake of a quiet life, are susceptible to firm guidance from the Commission, it would be less than human if it did not begin to think that it really mattered; that the members had a right to an autonomous existence exerting power of unlimited character.
On going through the powers of the treaty—and here I address all noble Lords who are impartial—and examining the powers of the Commission and its acolytes under the Bill, it must be said in relation to the member states and the Council of Ministers that they have accumulated very considerable powers indeed. That must give rise to a certain amount of anxiety. We live in troubled times. There is hardly a member state of the Community which is not in some kind of economic or political trouble. Unemployment in the EC is some 17.5 million and is still rising. No governments are escaping criticism. There must be doubt about whether these governments have been governing to their best abilities and for the general benefit of their respective countries.
Some people may believe that all member states' governments are irredeemable and do not know what they are doing. Strictures have been made across party boundaries to that effect. There is not universal approbation in this country for Her Majesty's present Government. Many of us may regret that—I shall not shed crocodile tears myself—but the fact remains that the Government are not at the apex of their popularity. And so it is with other governments. Therefore, there must be a temptation among politicians to think that if some of their powers were taken away from them and given to a supra-national body member state governments would be helped considerably. If anything went wrong they would not then blame themselves but could say, "Of course, this is all the fault of the Community. It is all the fault of the Commission. It is nothing to do with me".
I invite noble Lords only to contemplate that as a situation which is likely to arise. They need not necessarily agree with me. Now let us address ourselves to the powers of the Commission which are taken under the Maastricht Bill and which have not yet been referred to in detail. If noble Lords will bear with me I shall acquaint them with some of the powers. They may have escaped the attention of those who have not had the time diligently to study the treaty. Article 103, which deals with economic policy, states in paragraph 2:
"The Council shall, acting by a qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission, formulate a draft for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community".
So the Commission is charged with bringing forward proposals to that end. That implies that the
78
17 gentlemen, who, I believe, used to meet on a Wednesday morning in congenial circumstances and whose qualifications vary, are with their staff capable of doing exactly that. Paragraph 3 of the article states:
"In order to ensure closer co-ordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of the economic performances of the Member States, the Council shall, on the basis of reports submitted by the Commission, monitor economic developments in each of the Member States and in the Community as well as the consistency or economic policies".
The members of the Commission will advise the Council of that.
Paragraph 4 of Article 103 states:
"Where it is established … that the economic policies of a Member State are not consistent with the broad guidelines referred to in paragraph 2 or that they risk jeopardizing the proper functioning of economic and monetary union, the Council may, acting by a qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission, make the necessary recommendations to the Member State concerned".
Once again, the members of the Commission are charged with producing proposals to that end.
Paragraph 1 of Article 103a states:
"Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in this Treaty, the Council may, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, decide upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation".
That implies that the 17 commissioners have it within their own brains and competence to make the judgments necessary to produce those measures. And so it goes on.
Article 104c, paragraph 2, states:
"The Commission shall monitor the development of the budgetary situation and of the stock of government debt in Member States with a view to identifying gross errors".
Who are the 17 who are intellectually equipped to make judgments of that kind? They are not all professional economists—
Baroness Seear: Thank God!
Lord Bruce of Donington: Even if they were, that would be a dubious qualification. I could not agree more. They are ordinary human mortals like anyone else and yet they have those powers.
Paragraph 3 of Article 104c states:
"If a Member State does not fulfil the requirements under one or both of these criteria, the Commission shall prepare a report".
Egad it will, and on the activities of various member states! They are going to pass judgment on the economic performance of member states. Who endowed them with the abilities to do that? I do not wish to insult the gentleman in any way because I know him well but I doubt whether the capabilities of Herr Martin Bangemann are up to the task, unless his grasp of economic events has improved considerably since I last had the very great pleasure of encountering him on the European Parliament budgetary committee.
Paragraph 5 of the same article states:
"If the Commission considers that an excessive deficit in a Member State exists or may occur, the Commission shall address an opinion to the Council".
Who is going to help its members to do that? Who or what group within the Commission can set themselves up as being able to judge the affairs of other member states better than the Ministers of the member states themselves?

79
I could go on, but I shall not. I do not wish to detain the House too long. However, I may have given reasons for some of your Lordships to question the voluntary surrender of powers under the treaty to an unelected body of people of varying qualifications and of varying ages and backgrounds to the detriment of powers of Ministers in individual states.
In addition, there is the knowledge of the power of the Commission. I could give many more instances of additional powers being given to that nominated, non-elected body. An article in the Financial Times today shows what can happen in such circumstances.
The report in the Financial Times is headed:
"Clarke plans defence against EC charges on budget deficit".
It states:
"The European Commission makes no secret of its desire for the British pound and the Italian lira to return to the ERM".
What business is it of the Commission what the British pound or the Italian lira shall do? The officials of the Commission can think what they like privately and can put it in their reports to the Council. There is no reason why they should not do that; in fact, it is their duty. But they wish to go public on it and they have no right to do so. The article goes on:
"During a recent meeting of the EC's secretive monetary committee, composed of senior Treasury and central bank officials from the 12 member states, several members challenged the UK government's contention that over two-thirds of the budget deficit was due to cyclical economic factors, and would therefore recede with economic recovery".
They are appointed people; they are not elected. They are responsible to no one. It is a so-called independent body, but these days it seems fashionable for information to be leaked to the press regarding its opinions about the United Kingdom Government.
The article goes on:
"Others complained that UK forecasts of a cut in the deficit from 8 per cent of gross domestic products this year to 3.75 per cent in 1997–98 still left the deficit above the Maastricht target of no more than 3 per cent. This underlined that the UK was 'not serious' about Emu, one EC official said".
There we have it. The officials are appointed and not responsible to anybody. They are allegedly independent. They even leak information to the press. This is merely one example which I draw to your Lordships' attention. The officials are now so arrogant that, when it suits them—before a critical conference taking place tomorrow in ECOFIN—they believe that they can leak information to the press in order to prejudice the negotiations which are to take place.
The article goes on:
"Mr. Clarke is expected to argue that it is very difficult to measure how far the deficit is cyclical and how much it represents a structural increase in spending. He will also say the UK convergence plan is more realistic than some programmes put forward by other member states.
The ECOFIN meeting is also expected to discuss plans to improve multilateral surveillance of member states' economies".
You can bet officials leaked that also to the press.
This submission is made to your Lordships in good faith. My submission and that of my colleagues is that as a democracy, with an elected government who can be dismissed by the people of the country, we should
80
not give away the powers which were given to that government in the first place. That is happening imperceptibly.
My task is to do no more than to sow a little doubt as to whether it is wise in this treaty to concede so many powers, which are superior to those exercised by our own Ministers of the Crown, to an unelected body which may comprise some very nice people, although not as nice and gentle as the five who sit here, but people who are not averse to furthering their own careers and to seeking more power for themselves, without necessarily any unscrupulous motive but with the desire for power. I submit that we should not countenance that. The British people were unable to see what the treaty contained at the time of the last election because it was not printed and published until 15th May. They should have an opportunity to see what it involves.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has given a very fair assessment of the role of the Commission but he has left out a rather important change contained in the Maastricht Treaty as regards powers given to the European Parliament.
The noble Lord and I have both been members of that body, both as delegated and elected members. Whatever we may think of that parliament, the treaty gives it two extremely important new roles to which the noble Lord did not refer and which I believe could alter to some extent the view of the role of the Commission in relation to the other institutions.
Article 158 of the Maastricht Treaty gives a new power to the European Parliament to approve the appointment of the president of the Commission and other members of the Commission. That may seem to be a comparatively minor power. However, for some time—in fact since the beginning—the parliament has had the power to have a vote of censure against the Commission. That power has never been used because the parliament is well aware that had it used that power, governments would have immediately re-appointed the same people. I believe that the new power is one of the most important that has ever been given to the European Parliament because governments will not be able now to re-appoint the same people because the parliament would refuse to appoint a president or commissioners who may have been nominated a second time round. That is the first very important new power.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, from my noble friend's experience of that parliament, what evidence does she have that it would differ as regards the re-appointment of the president and the commissioners?
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not quite understand the import of my noble friend's question. Had he been in the recently elected parliament, he would know that it has thirsted for the blood of the commissioners. The power which Article 158 of the treaty gives to the parliament has been greatly welcomed by it. It means that in future it can censure the Commission. It has wished to do so on

81
many occasions but it has known that it would be pointless. However, it has now been given the power to block a new appointment and it will do so. It is not a delegated parliament. The position has changed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, since the noble Baroness addressed a series of questions to me I ask the leave of the House to inform her that in the course of a later amendment I shall deal with the activities of the European Parliament. At that time I hope to persuade her that she may be mistaken.
Baroness Elks: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention, but as regards what he said about the Commission officials being appointed and nobody having control over them, I do not agree with him in view of the new power given to the parliament.
The second new power, given under Article 173, is extremely important. That power has already been used. The Commission can be taken to the European Court of Justice for lack of competence or for acting ultra eires. That is extremely important because so far it has been impossible to deal with the Commission when it stepped out of line. The parliament is given that power under the treaty and that is extremely important. As I say, the power has been used. It was used to protect the prerogative of the parliament in a case in which the Commission and the Council had joined together so that the Commission was unable to look after the powers of the prerogative of the parliament. Therefore, under Article 173 as amended, a new power is given to the parliament to control much more closely the acts of the Commission than it has been able to do until now.
Further, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, quite rightly pointed to the role of the Commission which is important. But at the end of the day, the power remains with the Council. Articles 104(12) and 104(13) provide that the Council has the final decision. After all, it is the Executive's role to produce reports, make statements and put forward proposals. That applies even to our Government. But, at the end of the day, it is the Government who decide, not the civil servants. The position is exactly the same here. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am much obliged. I am sure that the noble Baroness would concede that, in considering all the matters to which she referred, the Commission did not seek to defend the status quo but, in fact, warmly welcomed greater accountability to the Parliament.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, thinks that the Commission was pleased that the new power has been given to the Parliament. We shall wait and see whether it will be pleased when the power is actually used.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I have one point to make in response to the infatuation of my noble friend Baroness Elles with the European Parliament and its powers. She talks as though the Parliament in Europe is similar to our Parliament. Well, I do not
82
agree with her. If such powers were given to our Parliament they would be used sensitively and with great care. However, that is not the makeup of the European Parliament; indeed, it is not likely to be so. It is too diffuse. My noble friend knows as well as I do that it is the heads of the various groupings that carve up all the decisions and agree to all the appointments.
The only reason I intervened is that many or my fears would disappear if the European Parliament was, or was likely to be, anything like our own Parliament. To make such a contribution as that of my noble friend could leave the impression that that is exactly how it will happen. In fact, my noble friend knows from her contact with it that the individual decisions from the Parliament come from the groupings where various arrangements are made to suit the matters being put forward. I am not against that, provided that we do not give the impression that it is something different from that which it is. The fact that the Parliament has been given such power satisfies my noble friend, but it gives me no satisfaction at all.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I can only say that each parliament has its own characteristics. I am sure that the European Parliament will assert those new powers with due respect and conscience. If my noble friend does not like the present composition of the European Parliament, I invite him to rejoin the Parliament so that we have distinguished members with experience of parliamentary democracy who will contribute to a better ongoing performance of the European Parliament.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the last thing that some of us want is to see the European Parliament being given more powers? That is precisely what it wants and precisely what it has been after for a long period of time, in exactly the same way as our own Parliament wished to obtain further powers from the Crown. It eventually succeeded in that aim and so achieved power to be sovereign over the Crown.
It seems to me that the new powers could give the impression that the Parliament can not only dismiss what it terms to be the government and state what it would like to see as the government of Europe, but it will also now have a say in appointing that government. Therefore, every twist of the ratchet gives the Parliament more power. The more power it gets, the more power it will want. If one looks at the manifesto or declaration of the European People's Party, it is quite clear that the party sees the European Parliament as the sovereign Parliament of the European Union and that it sees national parliaments as being subordinate to it.
Therefore, I am not at all happy about the new power being given to the Parliament. Through all my experience, I know that once you have power you want more and more until, eventually, you acquire all of it. That is the great danger.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, the noble Lord's last statement frightened me very much: once you have power over this House you want more and more. I shudder to think what he will do to us during the

83
course of the next three days of debate. I apologise to the noble Lord who introduced the amendment as I was a few minutes late in entering the Chamber. The debate is not about the European Parliament, it is about the powers of the Commission. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that is what we are talking about tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, has for a long time held a suspicion about the Commission and the Commissioners. He has warned us of their overweening grasp for power and about their undemocratic appointment. I have been sitting in Committee with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, when we have had such Commissioners and leading members of the Commission in front of us. He has never charged any of them with the offences that he has now put before the House. The noble Lord appears to want to intervene. I shall not allow myself to be interrupted at this point because I know perfectly well that that is true. The noble Lord has a fetish about the Commissioners, but he does not confront them when they present themselves before us with factual information about what they are doing.
Therefore, perhaps I may start by defending the Commissioners whom I have had the honour to interview and cross-examine. I do not think any noble Lords will wish to accuse their colleagues in the House, regardless of the side on which they sit, of an overweening greed for power: they have a duty to do and they try to do it.
In the course of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, we were told of a number of instances in the Maastricht Treaty where the Commissioners appear to have been given more power. I do not think that the noble Lord is in a position to answer—although he may be in such a position later—but has he looked at the powers that the Commission has under the Treaty of Rome? Has he looked at the extra powers that the Commission was given under the Single European Act in connection with economic co-operation? They are not dissimilar.
It is in the nature of the Community's institutional balance that the Commission initiates and the Council decides, with Parliament playing the part that it is given—an enhanced part, I am glad to say, in Maastricht. That is in the nature of the balance of powers within the Treaty of Rome. If the present amendment is another device to attack the Treaty of Rome, then at this stage of the evening I must warn your Lordships against it.
Too many of our debates have been about the Treaty of Rome or about the Single European Act, but not about Maastricht. Maastricht certainly gives the Commission the same sort of powers in connection with the slight changes that it has introduced. Having been given those powers, the Commission is now subject (as it was not subject before and is not subject now legally until we have ratified Maastricht) to the doctrine of subsidiarity. I oppose the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Morris: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Elles suggested that the House should draw immense comfort from the new powers given to the European
84
Parliament with regard to the appointment of the Commission and, indeed, of the president of the Commission. She made that absolutely clear in her remarks and quoted from Article 158. She said that,
"the President and other members of the Commission thus nominated [should] be subject … [to] approval by the European Parliament".
However, that is not what Article 158 states. It reads:
"The President and the other members of the Commission thus nominated shall be subject as a body to a vote of approval by the European Parliament".
That means that if one member of the Commission, perhaps even the president, has a serious objection, he has to take on the whole of the Commission, with the president, or do nothing. That is a tremendous limitation of power. Let us say for the sake of argument that the Parliament approves the nomination of the Commission, and the president of the Commission, by a vote. Whatever anyone says in Parliament can he totally disregarded by the governments. They can disregard what their own members may say within Parliament. The power of appointment resides with the governments of the member states, which they have to agree in common accord if the European Parliament votes that way.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Paragraph 2 of Article 158 states:
"The governments of the Member States shall nominate by common accord, after consulting the European Parliament, the person they intend to appoint as President of the Commission".
The Parliament is consulted and it can therefore refuse to accept the nomination of the president as so proposed by the member states.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point; but the power to consult does not give, under this article, any power then to compel the governments to change their nomination. This matter needs to be looked at very carefully. One should not draw comfort from what my noble friend suggests.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I speak as one of those kindly and gentle people to whom my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington referred earlier. I should say at once that as regards the Opposition, we would deny wholly that we have entered into any conspiracy against Back-Benchers to seek to truncate or eliminate debate in this House on this treaty. I suspect the Government would say likewise but that is a matter for the noble Baroness. My noble friend made a serious charge without a scintilla of evidence. It should not have been made.
As one of those kindly and gentle people that have been referred to, I must say that I do not recognise that the Commission as described by a number of noble Lords tonight is representative of the actual Commission at all. I have the benefit of having served on the Commission. Perhaps my noble friend may find it convenient, or inconvenient, to say that Ministers have the power in the last resort to make decisions. Of course they have that power. My noble friend says that Ministers are not up to that for a variety of reasons as they do not have the time to read their

85
papers. I should point out that they do not always have time to read their papers in this country as junior Ministers are often sent in to bat at about 10 minutes' notice. I believe they do rather well when that happens.
The fact of the matter is that in my experience Ministers are rather well briefed when they sit around the Council table. I accept they have a bevy of civil servants around them except when the testing time arrives and the commissioner suggests to the president who is in office for the time being that it might be a good idea for a session to be convened without any civil servant backing for Ministers. One would have thought, listening to my noble friend, that somehow the whole thing would collapse and the commissioner would have his own way, or the president in office would have his own way. However, things do not work like that.
I have seen Ministers summoned to meet the commissioner and the president in office for the time being in what are called confessionals when they are tested vigorously about their opposition to a particular proposal. Invariably the Ministers fare extremely well without any civil servants accompanying them. By and large, Ministers know their briefs. I had the happy opportunity to discuss Community affairs and Commission affairs with the noble Baroness from the Government party. She was always sympathetically received in the European Parliament. I am not in the business of praising Members of this Government unduly, but I thought the noble Baroness struck a happy note in the European Parliament to the advantage of this Government, the Parliament and the Commission. She took the trouble to familiarise herself with her brief.
I cannot recognise the situation that my noble friend has described. It is ludicrous to suggest that there is collusion to subvert Ministers between the member states' civil servants and the civil servants of the Commission when they meet in COREPER or working groups. The civil servants representing a member state are there to perform their duty for the government whom they represent. There are sharp collisions. To the best of my recollection, no Commission proposal has gone through unscathed. I may be wrong on that; but I cannot recall a proposal that went through unscathed during the four years in which I served on the Commission.
As regards the undesirability of the Commission producing reports, I do not think any commissioner or any commission official would say he has a monopoly of wisdom. They realise that they do not have such a monopoly of wisdom as the Parliament constantly criticises those reports and Ministers constantly criticise the reports. They should do so as there is nothing inviolate or sacrosanct about the reports. The treaty imposes a duty on the Commission in many respects to offer an opinion on a wide variety of matters.
I should also say to my noble friend that as regards the question of accountability one can never remove the significance of the personal relationships that a commissioner has with those with whom he or she has to deal. That applies whether it is a question of
86
government Ministers, the Members of the European Parliament with whom the commissioner has a particular relationship because it is their dossier the Parliament is considering, or whether it concerns the relationships between commissioners themselves. My noble friend seems to attach no significance to this whatsoever. I assure my noble friend that that is how it works in practice.
Tonight my noble friend dismissed the whole question of accountability through an ombudsman—he dismissed this more fervently in another speech he made—and through the power of the Parliament to investigate cases of maladministration. However, I know for a fact that the Commission has welcomed that accountability although it may regret that later. The Commission has always asked for greater accountability. It recognises the shortcomings that have emerged from the situation thus far in terms of a democratic deficit.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. said he would feel happier if the European Parliament more closely resembled a parliament with powers such as the British Parliament. My noble friend Lord Stoddart immediately rebuked him for saying such a terrible thing. I am not at all sure that in this Parliament—notwithstanding the noble efforts of the Select Committee of this House to scrutinise European Community legislation—we have anything to be proud of—for this Parliament fulfils a limited role in this regard. Certainly, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, would be the first to recognise that the Select Committee on which he served, and other committees, have done a wonderful job. However, it is a limited job. They cannot cover the whole panoply of European Community legislation.
We ought to consider that aspect before we criticise the European Parliament. Perhaps we could also learn from the German Parliament where Members of the European Parliament sit alongside German Members of Parliament in order to scrutinise legislation and quiz members of the Commission and others.
The suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Stoddart that the European Parliament is anxious to consider the Commission as the government of Europe is fanciful. A speech or two to that effect may be made by an aberrant Member of the European Parliament but there is no cogent evidence to suggest that that is what Members of the European Parliament want. Nor should they.
I believe that the noble Baroness is right. There is the beginning of greater accountability on a formal basis. I welcome that, but I believe that there is still a great deal of ground to be covered in that regard.
Finally, it is also a strange notion to suggest that this all-powerful Commission thinks up every idea on its own and then embarks upon initiating legislation. Again I can speak from experience. I support the views of Commissioner Bruce Millan, expressed in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee of another place. In paragraph 89 of that committee's report he explained that despite the Commission's ostensible sole right to initiate Community legislation,
"in fact most of the ideas have not come from the Commission at all … The Member States themselves have had a lot of the responsibility".

87
When one attends a Council meeting one knows that. The Council asks the Commission to undertake this, that or the other. The European Parliament, in its own initiative reports, has played a notable role. For example, the European Year of the Environment stemmed from an own initiative report of the European Parliament, as did Road Safety Year and the present Year of the Aged.
It is an amalgamation of ideas, emerging from all the institutions, which tends to produce the legislation. It is not a monopoly which is exercised by the Commission. It has the formal right to propose legislation. It has responsibility in that regard. But there are also many other factors to be considered.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this has been an unusual debate. After the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, it hardly seems necessary—except for one or two matters that he mentioned—that I should rise to reply for the Government. Perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord for his kind remarks.
I share the noble Lord's view that Ministers do read their papers. In the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, there is a certain mystique about what happens in a Minister's life in preparing for a Council meeting. The first thing I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is that one does not and cannot possibly cope with Community legislation if one prepares on the day, which is the impression he gave. The second thing I would say to him is that there are many intricate details which may not form part of the overall case. But if Ministers, as most do, find themselves at some time in a restricted session at which there are only Ministers, the commissioner and a couple of presidency clerks at the table, and they have not done their homework, then woe betide them. They do not have available the devices which are sometimes deployed in another place or in government to get them out of trouble. They really are on their own. I have watched Ministers from other countries in great trouble. I am glad to say I have never known any of my colleagues experience that problem because they make sure that they are properly briefed. One may go through the final briefing on the aircraft. That is a good use of time. I do not believe in wasting time and nor do my colleagues. However, although that final briefing is valuable, it will certainly not be the first time one has read the documents.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, yes, Ministers need time to cope, especially in European affairs. But they are certainly not baffled by their officials. They are very much helped by their officials. In this country we are particularly fortunate in our briefing. There are also permanent representatives in Brussels who make sure in advance of any meeting that one knows exactly what position might have been taken overnight by Ministers from other countries, who may have had more last-minute briefing than the noble Lord realises.
The working of the Commission is not as the noble Lord described it. It is a good deal more organised. It is certainly undertaken in much greater depth. If the
88
Commission worked in the way that he described I would agree with him that the whole situation was crazy. It just so happens that it is not.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, went on to speak of a situation which is very far from reality. I know how important it has been for Members of the European Parliament to share in the overall construction of the Community that we seek to build. I believe that my noble friend Lady Elles was absolutely right in what she said about the European Parliament.
It is normal Community practice to review periodically the role and functions of each institution, not just the Commission. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, concentrated exclusively on the Commission in what he said tonight. That review also applies to the other institutions.
It is clear that from time to time all governments will find aspects of the working of the Commission which they do not like. However, when one has built up the relationships of which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, spoke tonight, one learns why those things are happening. It may be the result of some fault in the preparatory work in Brussels or in Council meetings; it may be the fault of the Civil Service here at home which has not understood the proposition which is being put forward. It is sometimes hard for Members of Parliament in this country to understand the complications and the need for communication and co-operation between all parties—the Members of the European Parliament, the civil servants working at home and in Brussels and, above all, the Ministers—if the Commission is ever to succeed with any of the proposals it puts forward.
It is not merely the proposals which the Commission puts forward which eventually come into our forward planning, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said. It is also ideas which come from national parliaments. Indeed, we spoke of toy safety earlier. I remember working very hard to try to ensure that toys were safe for children's sake. It seemed to me to be a sensible consumer regulation. However, it took some time to persuade other governments and the Commission. We certainly needed the help and support of Members of the European Parliament to achieve it. Eventually it was the Commission which rightly came up with the proposal. That, if I remember rightly, was amended as a result of the discussion process at the time. I do not believe that that is a bad thing in reaching sensible, workable proposals.
The amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, moved, refers to the periodic review of the Commission. The noble Lord also said a great deal about the powers of the Commission. Perhaps I may say a little about the powers, as outlined in Article 155 of the Treaty of Rome. The Commission's role is to ensure that the Community's treaties are applied as well as to bring forward those proposals for the Council to consider. That is unaffected by Maastricht. The Commission is not a decision-making body. The Council of Ministers takes decisions on the basis of the Commission's proposals. The Commission may take decisions itself, but only where powers have been specifically delegated to it by the Council under carefully drawn conditions.

89
Let us take, for example, the provisions for the negotiation and conclusion of external agreements with third countries, as outlined in Article 228 of the Maastricht Treaty. The Commission has the power to conduct those negotiations on behalf of the Community. It makes sense for the Twelve to speak as one in such cases. But it only goes into such negotiations when authorised to do so by the Council of Ministers and on the terms agreed by the Council of Ministers. Similarly, the Commission will conduct negotiations in consultation with special committees appointed by the Council to assist it. But it has to be within the framework of guidance and instructions given by the Council.
I disagreed strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in his sowing of a little doubt this evening. In making so much of the role of the Commission in Articles 103 and 104, he repeatedly laid stress only on what the Commission would do. As my noble friend Lady Elles said, in other words, he skated over the Council's role. Article 103.3 states that,
"The Council shall … monitor".
Article 103.4 states that,
"The Council may … make".
Article 103a.1 states that,
"The Council may … decide".
The point that exists the whole way through the treaty is that although the Commission may propose, only the Council will decide.
Such powers as the Commission enjoys are also subject to improved scrutiny under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty. As my noble friend Lady Elles said, under the treaty, the role of the European Parliament in monitoring the Commission is substantially reinforced. Not only does the European Parliament have the powers that she described, it also has the right to establish committees of inquiry, to receive petitions from individuals and to invite the ombudsman to investigate maladministration.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, described the Commission as appointed officials, and I believe that he said "leakers" at one point. I am not sure whether that is parliamentary; it is certainly not complimentary. The Commission goes to very considerable lengths to maintain a good working relationship, otherwise it would never make progress on any of the areas of work which we ask it to carry through.
I wish to comment briefly on one further point on the amendment, that is, the main change relating to the appointment of the Commission which is outlined in Article 158 of the treaty to which my noble friend Lady Elles referred. The article itself provides for an increase from 1995 in the terms of office of the president of the Commission from two years to five years, and of ordinary commissioners from four years to five years. That will make their terms of office coterminous with the European Parliament. We believe that to be sensible because Article 158 also subjects the Commission, as a body, to a vote of approval in the European Parliament. That represents a welcome step forward in the running of the Commission. But the important factor is that the Commission will now be subject to a greater democratic scrutiny, and member states will retain
90
their right to nominate their own commissioners and to appoint both the president and the commissioner. Therefore I believe that it is another step forward.
I find the Maastricht Treaty an improvement on the previous Community treaties. It clarifies and codifies what the Community should do. It makes clearer than ever what it may not do. In areas such as education., health and culture, harmonising measures are explicitly excluded. We know that the Community may not involve itself, for example, in national health care systems. There are other examples too. The point that we make is that any action in those areas is restrained by the specific treaty bases in Maastricht. I believe that that is indeed a protection.
A number of other points were made by my noble friends and by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The noble Lord described his tear and anxiety about the European Parliament wanting new powers. I understand a little as to why he is anxious. But we cannot have greater scrutiny regarding all that is done in the European Community unless the European Parliament also plays its part alongside that of national parliaments. I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I, for one, will be very much happier if other member states' parliaments scrutinised half as much as the British Parliament in both its Houses. One of the weaknesses in many countries is the fact that their own parliaments scrutinise insufficiently. We should never allow ourselves to reach the stage where we rely on the European Parliament to do all the scrutiny. That would be wrong. It should be a dual function between the national parliaments and the European Parliament. While we cannot put right what may be wrong in other parliaments, I can tell your Lordships' House that there has been considerable praise for the way in which this Parliament, and indeed the Danish Parliament, have scrutinised by comparison with other parliaments within the European Community.
The amendment is interesting, but it is not necessary for the good working of the Bill and of the treaty. I believe that it would simply slow down and harm our progress. To require the Government to formulate, within 12 months of the Act coming into force, proposals for reviewing the new areas of competence of the Commission and the term of office of commissioners, would mean that after those 12 months we might not have the chance to act as we should. I, for one, do not intend that we shall be forced to react to others' proposals when we have good proposals to put forward. Therefore I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the response that she gave to the amendment and the remarks that I ventured to make on it. If she will permit me to say so, I always admire the way in which the noble Baroness meets the questions head on and answers them honestly. I am second to none in my admiration for the way in which she carries out her existing duties. Being quite an innocent person herself, in the sense that she would never conceive of anyone doing anybody down about anything, her defence of the

91
Commission will arouse immediate approbation in Brussels and thereafter in the Berlaymont. She will be canonised from now on.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Berlaymont is closed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I believe that at considerable expense a new headquarters has been erected which, fortunately, is free from asbestos, otherwise there might have been much combustible material flying about!
I should like to offer the House an immediate apology if I used the term "conspiracy" in regard to the attitude of the two Front Benches towards the Back Benches. The term "conspiracy" was not used within the context in which my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis used it in the legal sense, it ought to have been put in quotation marks and expressed in terms of a "tacit understanding". I sincerely hope that my revision of the term to "tacit understanding" will meet the point.
I was fascinated with the explanations given by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. We must have been sitting in two different places at two different times, because my recollections of the Commission—which are to some extent personal—do not square entirely with his. The presumption of lily-white innocence in the intentions of the Commission which he put forward no longer correspond to reality, although they obviously obtained during his tenure of office. One need only examine what the Commission has said—and I have sufficient material to paper the walls of this Chamber from top to bottom with some of its more ridiculous utterances—to realise that these days the members are not quite of the same calibre as they were during the sojourn of my noble friend in the headquarters of the Commission.
I do not feel called upon to answer the observations that have fallen from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. He ventured to comment on my attitude in the Select Committee but if he wants an inquest on those proceedings under his chairmanship, I shall be happy to provide it. Had the opportunity been afforded to me, I should have been only too delighted on some occasions to question commissioners. However, the noble Lord did not understate the time he himself took as chairman to question various witnesses, to the point where some of us felt that perhaps other people could have asked questions as well as our distinguished chairman, for whom we have the utmost regard.
I shall not deal with the matter which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, raised about the European Parliament as it will form the subject of later observations from me when it comes to budgetary control, with which the noble Baroness will undoubtedly be familiar. Therefore, I shall reserve my comments until then.
In the meantime, I wish to thank your Lordships for listening so patiently to the observations I have thought it proper to make. I do not claim any monopoly of wisdom, but I claim that what I ventured to put forward represents my true and sincere belief as
92
to the position. I am not trying to fool anyone, but I hope that when in due course your Lordships come to a decision it may be helpful to consider whether there is much in what I have said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls Lord Harmar-Nicholls moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Subsidiarity
(". Within six months from the coming into force of this Act, Her Majesty's Government shall lay before Parliament a Command Paper which—

(a) lists those areas

(i) which fall within the exclusive competence of the Community, and

(ii) which do not fall within the exclusive competence of the Community; and

(b) lists those cases which have come to the notice of Her Majesty's Government which involve activities which are carried out wholly within the territory of the United Kingdom but which whose regulation lies in areas falling within the exclusive competence of the Community.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to be constructive and helpful to the Government not only in the process of getting the Bill through but in its operation after it has been enacted. That is the general intention. With that in mind, my inclination at the moment is not to think of putting it to a vote. Its purpose is to see whether the Government have different ideas in terms of going into more detail about subsidiarity than they have so far. It is very important that they should.
I believe that this amendment on subsidiarity is tied very closely to the amendment which we recognise as the main one that is likely to be debated at Report stage. The subsidiarity point is very close indeed to the referendum issue, which I suppose will be the main point for debate. I believe that noble Lords in this House and people in the country prefer for the most part to adhere to the conventional parliamentary way of dealing with issues; that is, that Members of Parliament, who are supposed to have opportunities for going into greater detail as to what various pieces of legislation mean, argue and put their different views and come to a conclusion which becomes the legislation that is accepted. By and large, I believe that people outside, as well as most people inside Parliament, want that to continue as the main way of conducting our parliamentary business. If we want it to continue, I think that we must not have it infringed.
I believe that, for the most part, people outside Parliament would say that it is better that the parliamentarians themselves should deal with such questions as the interpretation and scope of the Bill; how it refers to GATT; and the Commission's powers and the terms of office. People outside would say, "Those are subjects about which we know nothing. They require a great deal of detailed knowledge which we have had no opportunity to research. We should like to leave that to the Members of Parliament, whose job it is to acquaint themselves with the detail." That applies to almost all the amendments that we are likely to deal with at this Report stage, except for the one on

93
subsidiarity. The subsidiarity point is one in which people outside, if they are not already terribly interested in it, will become very interested in the future. When one talks outside this House one recognises that the general reaction of people to the Maastricht Treaty is: how will it affect my way of living; how will it affect things with which I am concerned; what does it mean?
It is vital that, so far as we can, we should spell out what subsidiarity really means and identify the points that are likely to be covered by the protection of subsidiarity as regards the independence of people in this country. If, as this amendment asks, we could spell out or indicate in a much better way than we have done so far what subsidiarity is likely to protect and reserve for local decision, I do not believe that there would be much demand for a referendum. I believe that people would recognise, as with most of the other problems, that it is better for the parliamentarians to deal with it with their special knowledge and their special powers. They do feel, whoever "they" are—and I agree—that subsidiarity has been dragged in as a sort of excuse to get over a rather tricky part of the treaty of which nobody, including the Government, is particularly proud. Subsidiarity is the answer to many of the fears expressed in newspaper reports and by many other members of the Community that sovereignty and the power that goes with it will be lost. There are instances where the Commission has tried to interfere with, say, where we should cut a road surrounding London and other matters of that sort—matters which are nothing to do with anybody except this country and the people in this country. That is the fear. If we could know, not exactly, because that would be asking too much, but in greater detail, what subsidiarity will cover by way of preserving our independence here at home, I believe that that would remove many of the fears that people have as to the overriding effect that the Maastricht agreement will have, if it is left as it is now.
It is not only during the period in which the Bill is put on to the statute book that we need to have reassurance. Things will go wrong afterwards. There will be many problems. The treaty will not develop smoothly and be without any quibble or concern. We know that all kinds of things will happen. I have given one example; namely, trying to alter the road surrounding London. But if, before Parliament and the people have given their acquiescence to the Bill, they have been told exactly what the treaty is likely to cover, there is less chance of having to face problems after the Bill has become an Act and is effective.
I do not want to push this issue to a vote, even though colleagues in this House may believe that it is worthy of coming to a decision tonight. I should like to give the Government a chance between now, Third Reading and the passage of the Bill to take on board this particular point.
In responding during Committee stage to an appeal similar to the one that I now make, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, said that such a list would bore the reader and it would be impractical to draw up a list. I do not think that it would be boring. I believe that it is a vital ingredient if we want
94
Maastricht and the spirit of Maastricht to work as the Government have described. On another occasion the noble and learned Lord said:
"if someone wishes to attempt a list, I should be happy to comment on it".—[Official Report, 28/6/93; col. 653.]
Why cannot the Government draw up a list and allow us to be happy to comment on that list? They are in a much better position to be able to produce a list that has some strength and some significance. I believe that it would be in the Government's interest to do so. I believe that many of my noble friends may have different feelings about the vital vote on the referendum which will take place in a couple of days' time if the Government said—particularly if it came through the mouth of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—that they would look at the matter and try to produce in greater detail the general idea of what subsidiarity meant. At the end of the day, my amendment does not call for anything to be done overnight. The amendment says:
"Within six months from the coming into force of this Act. Her Majesty's Government shall lay before Parliament a Command Paper which … lists those areas … which fall within the exclusive competence of the Community".
That is the basis of the argument. If there is an undertaking or promise—it need not be an undertaking or need to be as deeply interpreted as an undertaking—we shall look at it and attempt to produce a list so that we can see what it covers. At the moment it seems reasonably clear to me that neither the Government nor anyone else have produced a list to cover the meaning of subsidiarity because nobody knows what it means. All the members of the Community have different interpretations of what is meant by "subsidiarity".
When the Maastricht Treaty was agreed and subsidiarity was first announced, we gave the Prime Minister many plaudits for the work that he had done. My first comment, which is on the record, was a question: what does subsidiarity mean? I said that it would satisfy me if it meant that each country makes a decision as to what it thinks ought to be dealt with at home, and that decision cannot be interfered with by anybody else. If we could say, "We can decide whether we ought to build a road or do lots of other things that will come within the range of the Maastricht Treaty", that would satisfy me. But we know that that is not possible because it is known already that almost every separate member of the Community has different ideas.
We also know that the general idea of the Commission is that it does not want to be tied in that way. We also had it clearly—I do not think that the noble and learned Lord has ever shirked this point—that the decision on whether subsidiarity will work and whether decisions shall be made on the home ground will at the end of the day be made by the European Court. If people think differently from ourselves on, for example, the fishing quota, or on what will happen with regard to internal planning, or on what kind of directives come forward telling our restaurants how to run their shows, and if those decisions are to be made by other people—although the other people may well be the European Court—

95
those are the issues which people who are pushing for the referendum will want to be certain are left on our home ground.
The purpose of the amendment is to do no more than the very easy-to-read words say. There is nothing difficult about them. No legal interpretation is required. The amendment asks: what does subsidiarity mean? We have been told that it means that powers will be left to us to settle things ourselves and that we shall not be interfered with even by the European Court. We say, right, how far does that go? What does it cover?
I conclude my brief comments on this constructive amendment by telling my noble and learned friend who is to reply that some of us are entitled to be suspicious. I repeat what I have said before. I do so not from any point of view of wanting to make a personal statement but because it adds to the point that it is not an overnight feeling. It is a fact that I resigned as a Minister in the Macmillan government on the issue of the Treaty of Rome because I did not think that it was satisfactory. I thought that it would infringe on the sovereignty and powers of this country to look after the interests of the people in this country. Once we had signed the treaty I felt, despite that kind of plea, that it was everyone's duty to try to make it work. I felt that the right thing to do was to know more about it if I could. So I got myself elected to the European Parliament to see if there one could find the real meaning of the treaties that we had signed which I instinctively felt were not in the best interests of this country.
What I learnt there—and the reason I intervened on the question of what the parliamentary powers should be—confirmed some of my doubts. We were told, when we were arguing 22 years ago about certain dangers such as we are doing now, that certain things could not happen and that we had the veto; that we could stop it and that we would if these things happened. In the 22 years that have elapsed, during the period when I was in the European Parliament and certainly in the Parliament here, we have seen the power of the veto whittled away to an extent that makes it only a skeleton of what we were told it would be. If that happened to the veto, which got us on the way to the European treaty, will the same thing happen to subsidiarity? We were told when we questioned it that subsidiarity would put that right. Then we asked: what does subsidiarity mean? No one knows. Different countries have different interpretations of what they think it means.
All I am asking in this amendment is for the Government to say, "Yes, we will look to see if it is possible to sketch out in some detail what subsidiarity covers; what kind of things will protect our freedoms and what kind of things will be outside that competence". If we can have that it will help the Government to get their Bill and it will help the Government and the Community afterwards to operate it if it becomes part of the powers of the European Community. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, at Second Reading I drew your Lordships' attention to the fact that at the beginning of June the Minister's right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had written:
"Subsidiarity must be the guiding principle of Community legislation".
How splendid if that were actually to come about, as opposed to being no more than an over-optimistic aspiration, as the failure to achieve any real progress on subsidiarity at the Edinburgh summit seemed to indicate. Mr. Hurd went on to write:
"The body of existing legislation should be regularly culled".
Extremely welcome though such an outcome would be, it seems even more over-optimistic in that such an aspiration is apparently stymied by the Berlin Wall of the acquis communautaire which Article B of Title I of the treaty stipulates must be maintained in full. I emphasise the qualification "in full".
Quite apart from the problem over the wording of the treaty which I have just mentioned, the other difficulty is that one is up against human nature. People who have been given too much power over others get to enjoy wielding that power and become most reluctant to give it up, especially when they have managed to convince themselves that they are exercising that power wisely and altruistically. To paraphrase a well-known saying current in Britain in the late 1940s, in Brussels nowadays the gentlemen in Berlaymont know best. A truly confederal system might be able to check that tendency, but unfortunately the Community is drifting towards federalism even if the actual "F" word has been censored out of the treaty.
We know from the experience of Australia and the United States of America how power becomes gradually more and more concentrated at the centre under any federal system, even in countries with a common law tradition and with a broad Anglo-Saxon bias in favour of freedom which is certainly not the case on the continent of Europe.
Let it not be thought that only the British worry about power being centralised and nation states being deprived of the right of independent action. Less than a year ago M. Jean-Louis Giral, who is president of La Fedération Nationale du Patronat Francais (the French employers' federation) in opposing ratification of the Maastricht Treaty by France, wrote that despite the apparent devolution of powers conferred by the principle of subsidiarity, from his own very considerable experience in negotiating with Community institutions, Brussels simply could not resist interfering in everything and trying to regulate everything and that accordingly there was a danger that subsidiarity in practice would amount to very little.
It is vital therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has indicated, to help the Government in their proclaimed objectives by putting some teeth into the concept of subsidiarity. The amendment is an essential step in that direction because it helps to clarify various ambiguities. The ultimate aim must be strictly to limit the Community's

97
competence to matters which have cross-border implications, leaving purely national matters to nation states. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, gave the example of road building and, indeed, we have had much trouble over the M.3 extension and Oxleas Wood. The Belgians, Portuguese, Greeks and Germans have no more business interfering in the building of our roads than we have in the building of theirs.
Perhaps I may take another example. For years, the British people have been conned into believing that "Europe" has given them pure water. The EC has given them nothing at all. What it has done effectively is to force them to pay through the nose for their water by way of much higher charges. The Sunday papers yesterday—the broadsheets, not the tabloids—reported that water charges would at least double, and quite probably treble, within the next seven years. If the British electorate really wanted to wash their cars and to flush their lavatories with distilled water they would only have to vote into power a government who promised to raise taxes and water charges to the extent necessary to make that possible. The fact that they have not done so suggests that they would rather have slightly less salubrious water in return for saving vast sums of money. However, the paternalists and busybodies of the EC decided otherwise—backed up, it is only fair to say, by paternalists and busybodies in certain national parliaments.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, surely one cannot be totally nationalistic in the matter of the cleanliness of water. The North Sea, for example, is fed by many rivers from the Continent of Europe and greatly affects us. Surely, therefore, it is not sensible to take a nationalistic approach and to argue subsidiarity on that particular matter.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord. We are talking about drinking water, not about the pollution of the seas, which is another matter. I agree that anything that is discharged into the sea and affects other countries is a proper matter for cross-Community action, but drinking water is a purely internal matter.
The EC's action was popular so long as the British people believed that they were getting something for nothing. It will not be popular much longer now that the bills are thudding onto their doormats. I contend that matters such as this, which have no cross-border effects—I emphasise that once again to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford—should be returned to the competence of national parliaments. If I have understood the press reports correctly, even M. Jacques Delors agrees. Being a fair-minded man, I am pleased to pay tribute to M. Delors where tribute is due. I hope that the Government will agree that the amendment usefully paves the way for power to be devolved back to where it belongs—the British Houses of Parliament.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I listened to the—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order! Liberal!
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's apology and look forward to hearing what he has to say.
I listened to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, with the greatest interest. I respect his resignation on the grounds that the Treaty of Rome would lead to a diminution or a de facto pooling of our sovereignty. That is something with which I have always agreed and, in advocating our signature, I never pretended that it would do anything else. However, he said something else with which I also agreed but, I suspect, for rather different reasons than those which he offered. He said that what he was asking the Government to do was to spell out—I think that I am quoting him correctly—what subsidiarity really means. He went on to say that all members of the Community have a different interpretation of "subsidiarity". Those are two extremely interesting statements that have implications which, it seems to me, the noble Lord did not fully recognise.
In point of fact, he is asking for a written constitution. The only way in which one can spell out exactly what subsidiarity means is by producing a written document which defines the powers that are held centrally and those that are held by the different component parts of the Community. That is a perfectly reasonable and sensible thing to do and it produces—or should produce—the clarity which the noble Lord advocated. It is what was clone in Philadelphia—I believe I am right in saying—in 1787. It is an extremely complicated process, and cannot be done in six months. Secondly, it cannot be done unilaterally by Her Majesty's Government. To avoid the second danger of all members interpreting it differently, to which the noble Lord referred, it would presumably have to be agreed by all member states. We should have to have a kind of constitutional convention. What we should end up with is not merely a written constitution, but a federal constitution.
I always thought that noble Lords who opposed Maastricht, opposed it because, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, it was drifting towards federalism. Well, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is not drifting towards federalism, he is driving straight at it full speed ahead. I happen to think that that is not a wholly bad thing, but I cannot believe that it is the position of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, or the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. They tell us that the great danger is that we shall have a federal constitution. Here we have an amendment, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in which a straight federal constitution is advocated. The result of that will be that when there is some dispute as to whether one of the nations is interpreting the constitution correctly, the only way in which the problem will be solved will be by having a supreme court. Therefore we should be giving more power to the European Court of Justice to interpret the constitution.

99
I point that out only because it is interesting that that view, which is not totally alien to that which I share, should come from the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there is one point upon which I should like to hear the noble Lord's reaction. If it is not possible—that is what he is suggesting—for the I2 members of the Community to reach agreement on such an intimate and important matter, is there not a message in that as to whether the Maastricht Treaty itself is something of which we should be in favour?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I hope that we should obtain an agreement. I suspect that we should, because there would be a will to do so. All I am saying is that the result would be a federal constitution.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I did not intend to speak this evening, but I am bound to say that it is tiresome that we have these arguments over and over again. In Committee, a vast miasma of suspicion and obfuscation was erected around the word "subsidiarity". The term was explained with absolute clarity by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. My noble and learned friend Lord Slynn of Hadley explained how it would work in the Community. Here again, we have this evening a declaration that no one knows what subsidiarity means and no one knows how it will work.
In fact, the only real excuse for the amendment is that it is one of the few which bears any relation to the Bill, because the term "subsidiarity" is, for the first time, introduced into a European treaty, and it is highly important that it should be.
Subsidiarity is perfectly explicable. It means that a decision should not be made by any decision-maker more remote from the person affected by the decision which could be made reasonably by some institution or decision-maker closer to the person affected. In domestic terms, it means that the parish council should not decide any matter that can properly be decided by the parishioner, and so on up the hierarchy to Whitehall. Whitehall should not decide any matter which could reasonably be decided by a county council, a district council, a parish council or the parishioner himself. That is easily transferable to the European institutions. Nothing should be decided by Brussels which cannot reasonably he decided by Whitehall or some subordinate decision-maker.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and I have been colleagues for many years and I should like to flatter myself with friendship. However it is absurd to say that the situation has not been explained. Theologians know a condition called "invincible ignorance" whereby whatever the explanation the recipient cannot take it in. It excuses the recipient from everlasting damnation. I am glad to think that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is so excused.
This is an important innovation into the treaty for the reason that I ventured to explain. I hope that we need no longer have any obfuscation about what subsidiarity means or its value.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale: who decides whether a decision is taken at the level of the local council, the district council or—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I believe that I am in order. I must remind the noble and learned Lord of the wording in Article 3b which states:
"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity".
There is nothing in the guidance as to who takes that decision.
The only guidance that we have is contained in the Edinburgh declaration, which I imagine all members of the Community agreed. One must therefore ask whether the famous Article 3b will in any way change the acquis communautaire. It is worth quoting that declaration, at the end of which I shall ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor whether he agrees that that is the declaration and how Her Majesty's Government will try to reverse it. The declaration states:
"The principle of subsidiarity does not relate to and cannot call into question the powers conferred on the European Community by the Treaty as interpreted by the Court".
The words "as interpreted by the Court" are important. During our proceedings many noble Lords will have become convinced that the Court is merely the engine of the treaty and is not a court of justice as we understand it. The declaration continues:
"It provides a guide as to how those powers are to be exercised at Community level, including in the application of Article 235. The application of the principle shall respect the general provisions of the Maastricht Treaty, including the 'maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire', and it shall not affect the primacy of Community law nor shall it call into question the principle set out in Article F(3) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies".
Those who support this Article 3B and pretend that it is some shield for our national sovereignty have to say clearly either who will be taking the decisions in question or they have to make a list as to what is protected by the shield of subsidiarity and what is not so protected.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I shall be brief because the question of subsidiarity was canvassed at length in our previous debate and, with the greatest respect, nothing new has been said this evening.
I believe that there is perhaps a need on the part of the Government to listen to the advice given by the Select Committee in another place as regards its suggestion that it would be helpful if the Government were to report regularly—perhaps by way of six-monthly reports—on developments in the European Community as to how the principle has been applied. But I do not believe that apart from that, and perhaps consideration by Select Committees and scrutiny committees in both Houses as regards the

101
application of the issue in practice, it would be helpful to list the matters of subsidiarity in the way proposed in the amendment.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said so effectively, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dealt extensively with the issue as to how the question of what is and what is not justiciable may be applied. There is really nothing to add in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the question of building roads. I recommend him to look at paragraph 2 of Article 130 where he will see specific exclusions from the application of qualified majority voting as regards environmental proposals. The drinking water directive goes back to 1980 when it was accepted unanimously by the governments of the Community, including the Conservative Government. There is nothing more to be said about that.
I believe that this is a thoroughly impracticable proposition. I hope that if the opinion of the House is tested on the matter, it will reject the amendment although the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that he does not intend to push the matter to a vote this evening. I believe that he is very wise because the amendment does not add up.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may recommend to his colleagues that the application of the suggestion made by the Select Committee in another place would be helpful to Parliament as a whole.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern):My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with that last point. Obviously, the arrangements to be made for the scrutiny of activities within the Community require to be reviewed from time to time. I have no doubt that the various suggestions made in that connection will be taken into account as we progress.
I wish to say a few words about the amendment and some of the comments that have been made about it. I believe that I have answered already all the questions which have been put this evening but that may not necessarily preclude me from doing so again.
As regards the acquis communautaire—that is, the standing law of the Community—what has been said is that that law stands. Obviously, it would be a very difficult situation to think of that law as affected by the principle without further enactment. However, it does not mean that standing law may not be reviewed in the light of' the application of the principle and then modified by subsequent enactment. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch understands that.
Reference was made to pretence. I repudiate any suggestion of any kind of pretence. I have sought to explain as clearly as I can the words which are used in Article 3b. There is no pretence about it whatever. In order to avoid any pretence, I have declined to prophesy exactly what would happen in any particular case. I have not done so because the words of Article 3b—as is so often true in the law—while being very clear and precise, have to be applied to particular circumstances. The judgment of how they should be
102
applied to particular circumstance is something that will ultimately be the responsibility of the judicial authority that will be charged with the ultimate decision.
My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked who would decide the matter. I have sought to answer that question. His answer is that the European Court of Justice, notwithstanding its name, is not a court of justice. I do not know what my noble friend's attitude is to the Treaty of Rome. However, the Treaty of Rome set up the Court of Justice. That treaty, and those who acceded to it, considered that if you were to have a Community legal order, then it was necessary to have a court which decided questions of Community law in a way that applied throughout the Community. Accordingly, it was necessary to have the European Court of Justice, with members from each of the constituent member states, which would have such responsibility.
I altogether repudiate the notion that it is not a court of justice. It is possible that it comes to decisions from time to time with which my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch does not agree. Indeed, that may occasionally happen even for me. However, that does not mean that it is not a court of justice. I should point out that about 50 per cent. of those who go to the courts come away a little dissatisfied with the answer received. I suppose that even one of the mothers who appeared before King Solomon was a bit dissatisfied with the answer. However, that does not mean that it was not a just answer and the best answer that a just judge could give in the circumstances.
The ultimate question of the application of the doctrine of subsidiarity in Community matters, in so far as it is a matter of Community law and it is made so if Maastricht is ratified by the inclusion of Article 3b in the Treaty of Rome, as amended, is a matter for the European Court of Justice to determine.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls for seeking to help the Government to find the right answer in the referendum vote. I am sure that he is doing everything that he possibly can to help us obtain that answer. Therefore, I wish to respond to him as fully as I possibly can. I have sought to do so by explaining the criteria under which one decides whether or not under the existing treaties (and, as amended by Maastricht, if it is approved) the areas of exclusive competence are to be determined.
In areas of exclusive competence, there is no room for the question as to whether it is a member state or the Community that should legislate. The agreement between the member states has determined that question by stating that it is the Community that should legislate. But even in that area, Article 3b provides that the Community legislature should
"not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of"
the treaty. Those are clear words. I believe that I know what they mean. They can be applied to test any Community instrument.
In so far as the option is left between the Community legislating and the member states legislating, the second paragraph of Article 3b makes it plain that the Community is to legislate,

103
"only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community".
All those are quite simple words to be applied to test the question in any particular case.
As regards a list of areas of exclusive competence, I have explained—I hope clearly—the reasons why it is not really possible to frame a list in the sense which my noble friend mentioned. I have sought to indicate the general areas in which this occurs. They are the common agricultural policy, the common commercial policy, the common fisheries policy as regards conservation, and the common external tariff. Those are the general areas but, as I have explained, one has to delimit within them in considerable detail before one can say one is discussing an area of exclusive competence.
In practice, a proposal is made and tested against the power under which it is proposed. One then examines that power. The idea of trying to do that in the abstract, which is what my noble friend is seeking to do, is quite impractical. If he tried to undertake that by reference to particular cases, he might understand the position better.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that my noble friend was making rapidly towards a federal constitution. I am sure that is about the last thing my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls would want to do. Even in a federal constitution there are questions on how the division of powers between the constituent bodies applies. Noble Lords who have any familiarity with the development of the law of the United States or of the Commonwealth of Australia will know of a case or two in which that question has been raised. It is quite impossible to exclude litigation altogether in these areas because of the imprecise nature of language as an instrument and because of the difficulty of forecasting, at the time an instrument is made, all the possible situations to which it shall apply. I believe that the clarity of Article 3b matches the clarity of any such division of powers in the kind of constitutions to which I have referred.
As regards existing law, I believe that the Community will review it to see to what extent it should be modified in accordance with the terms of Article 3b. Article 3b itself will not have that effect, as I have sought to explain, but I believe the Community will embark on such a review. As the Edinburgh Summit showed, the Community has already done that. For what it is worth, I confirm that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch has correctly quoted from the Edinburgh communiqué but in my view that does not advance his cause one iota.
I hope your Lordships will not wish to give effect to this amendment. I understood that my noble friend desired simply to help me by probing me to the ultimate and that he did not really intend to press the amendment. I commend that view to him.
10 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that no new points had been put forward and that he had answered the points that had
104
been raised. However, the noble and learned Lord has not answered those points. What he has done, on three occasions now, is to give an answer but he has not answered the points. He has given an answer to assuage some of the doubts that some people have on this important problem. He may have satisfied the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, but he has not satisfied a lot of others.
I accept that what this amendment asks for would not be easy to provide. It may well be that the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that six months would not be enough time for the matter in question. If the Government could have said that they would attempt to recognise where the powers are and how far they extend, that would have signified some progress. However, the noble and learned Lord has given an answer but not the answer.
We still have Third Reading on this Bill. I believe that the answer to this matter is tied up with whether the nation will be satisfied with anything less than a referendum. I believe that a clearer answer on this question might well have minimised that risk.
I am also satisfied that if this Bill becomes an Act and is put into operation, in years to come problems will have to be faced from disgruntled people in this country who would not have been disgruntled if they had known what it all meant before the final decision was taken.
Having said that, and having tried to help the Government—whether I am a federalist or the opposite of a federalist, whatever that is—I do not believe that it is appropriate at this stage to push the matter to a vote. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morris Lord Morris moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Frontier protection
(". Nothing in this Act shall have the effect of requiring the abandonment of restriction of any measures in force at the periphery of the territory of the United Kingdom for—

(a) the purpose of control of drug traffic, terrorism and other criminal activity, and

(b) the passage to and from the United Kingdom of persons who are not citizens of the Union.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment standing in my name is to try to obtain from Her Majesty's Government an undertaking, or at least an assurance, that the declaration negotiated at the time of the negotiation of the Single European Act has some force in law.
Noble Lords will recall that the Single European Act inserted into the Treaty of Rome a new article (Article 8a) which provides for the establishment of the internal market by 1st January 1993. That short article states quite clearly that:
"The internal market shall comprise an area without frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty".
On the face of it that provision would appear to require that both customs points and passport controls should be abolished as from 1st January 1993. Obviously, the British Government are firmly against the removal of such controls at points of entry

105
to the United Kingdom. That is a position with which I agree entirely, and I believe that many of your Lordships are also in agreement.
As a result, a declaration was negotiated at the time of the negotiating of the Single European Act, which is also mercifully short, which reads:
"Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries, and to combat terrorism, crime, traffic in drugs and illicit trading in works of art and antiques".
The dilemma lies here. Her Majesty's Government maintain that that declaration gives them the right to maintain passport and customs checks at their borders but the Commission and others challenge that interpretation. I have one question for my noble friends on the Front Bench. Who is right: Her Majesty's Government or the Commission?
If Her Majesty's Government are right in thinking that by securing that declaration, which they and other members regarded at the time as reserving a right to maintain border controls for those purposes, the wording is hardly explicit. The reference in Article 8a to areas without frontiers does not sit happily with the right to maintain general checks which is claimed by Her Majesty's Government. In addition, a declaration has less legal strength than a treaty provision. It is my submission that it is persuasive or illustrative rather than having substantive legal force.
It is on that issue, and that issue alone, that I would welcome clarification and undertakings from my noble friends on the Front Bench. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I venture to suggest that, on this the ninth day of our deliberations on the Maastricht Bill, we put a little discipline into our proceedings. My noble friend who moved the amendment referred to the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act but he did not refer to the Maastricht Treaty. He did not refer to it for the very good reason that there is nothing whatever in the Maastricht Treaty which refers to frontier controls. If that is correct, I venture to suggest to my noble friend that the amendment falls outside the Long Title of the Bill. if that is right, in my submission your Lordships should not trouble yourselves further.
There is another reason why you should not trouble yourselves further. If your Lordships examine the Treaty of Rome and the provisions concerning the free movement of goods and persons, your Lordships will discover that there is adequate power in the Treaty of Rome to deal with the matters that worry my noble friend. For that secondary reason, I suggest that your Lordships should not trouble yourselves further with the amendment and should proceed to the next one.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose underlying the amendment. However, as I understand it, the Government have covered the matter by reserving our position on more than one occasion.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Morris. I have heard the
106
arguments before. They are the ones put forward by the Scots after 1603 for keeping a Customs post at Berwick-upon-Tweed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Labour Party supports the maintenance of frontier controls. We believe that nothing in the treaties damages that aspect. We believe that many of the provisions of the treaty will help in combating terrorism and drugs.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in encapsulating that I say, "And so say all of us". However, in fairness to my noble friend, he requires more of an answer than that.
The issue of frontier controls has been discussed both in your Lordships' House and in another place on many other occasions. The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they do not accept the European Commission's interpretation of Article 8a (now to become Article 7a) in relation to free movement of persons.
The free movement provisions of the Treaty of Rome apply, in our view, only to European Community nationals. When my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke put forward a similar amendment at Committee stage, I again reiterated that we have no intention of abandoning frontier checks, including immigration controls on all non-European Community nationals who want to enter the United Kingdom.
We have always been emphatic that frontier controls between the United Kingdom and other member states should be maintained, and it was for that reason that we obtained in 1985 the declaration which is attached to the Single European Act: that we (and other European Community states) have the right to prevent drug trafficking, terrorism and illegal immigration from entering our respective countries.
We believe in co-operating closely with our partners in the European Community on immigration and asylum matters, on the fight against drugs, terrorism and other serious forms of crime, where we all face common problems. That is why we argued for, and why there now is in the Maastricht Treaty, the inter-governmental interior and justice pillar. That is the reason for that inclusion.
Of course, the Twelve member states operate different immigration systems, and each state is subject to different levels of different forms of pressure. We in the United Kingdom happen to be an island and happen to be surrounded by water. That happens to provide us with natural safeguards whose effectiveness we have no intention whatsoever of compromising.
The United Kingdom's position is well known on these matters. The Maastricht Treaty does not alter the position regarding internal frontiers one iota, or the ability of citizens or member states to move freely between the states.
There is therefore no reason to amend the Bill, and the United Kingdom's position will not be strengthened by inserting a provision of the kind suggested by my noble friend. I hope he will agree that it would be best not to be so altered.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, when I moved the amendment I made it as clear as I could that it was in the nature of a probing amendment. In thanking my noble friend, all I have to say is that rarely have I received an answer so close to the one I sought. For that, I am extremely grateful to him and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Common Foreign and Security Policy: operational expenditure
(". Her Majesty's Government shall not, in the Council or in any other institution of the Community or the Union, agree to the payment out of the Community budget of any operational expenditure in the field of foreign and security policy under Article 199 of Title II of the Treaty on European. Union unless such specific agreement shall first have been authorised by Act of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a little unfortunate that the groupings today did not include Amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which relate to defence and security matters, with an amendment which was moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Statements were made about the Community's likely responsibilities in the field of security which are of relevance to the proposals for the pillar affecting matters in the Treaty on European Union which we are discussing. It is a pity that my noble friend Lord Finsberg is not in his place since he spoke at some length on the topic. Even in his absence, I am afraid I must say that the picture which he drew about the relations of WEU and NATO and our own responsibilities in the area was misleading. The fact is that there has been, in relation to security and defence matters and foreign policy matters—which are entangled with them—a high degree of ambiguity which has not been resolved.
Noble Lords may have seen the admirable paper on the subject prepared by the House of Commons Library; Research Paper 93/27 issued in March. It points out—and I think this is unanswerable—that at the heart of the discussion as to whether there should be a security aspect of the Community's affairs there has lain an unanswered question. Although it is said that it is in some way a relationship between NATO and WEU which will be the instrument there are, and have been, two totally different conceptions as to what that relationship should be. On the one hand, there is the conception which is supported by Her Majesty's Government and certain other governments—notably that of the Netherlands—that WEU should simply be a way of strengthening the European component of European defence, but that the overall responsibility should remain entirely with NATO which alone has the capacity to mobilise and direct forces if those were needed.
On the other hand, there is the view held notably by the French, and to some extent, the Spaniards, that WEU should look towards replacing NATO because it does not believe in the perpetuity of the American and Canadian participation in our defence. As the
108
research paper points out, those issues have never been resolved; they are always fudged when we come to debate them and it is important in relation to the Treaty on European Union. The point of the amendments is to try to obtain further clarification.
Although it is said of the treaty that the pillar relating to defence and security matters is not part of the Community—that is to say, it is not part of the legal and administrative machinery by which the Community operates—it is made clear that it is the intention that the Community itself should eventually be superseded by the European Union, and in that case this difference will cease to exist. There will be one set of institutions; namely, the institutions of the European Union. That is made clear by another quite important document, the draft by the Institutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament entitled The Constitution of the Union, which makes it abundantly clear that the institutions of the Union will comprise, like the institutions of any state, responsibility in matters of security and defence.
The difficulty throughout our discussions on the Maastricht Treaty has been that the Government and their supporters constantly refer to the limitations in the Treaty of Maastricht itself, the safeguards that exist and those that have been promoted by Her Majesty's Government. On the other hand, those of us who express doubts are more concerned with the movement which is implicit in the treaty towards European union—that is to say, towards a European state. The example that we have here in the field of defence and security is perhaps the most obvious. It is indeed so obvious that I do not wish at this hour to prolong the discussion. However, I have one particular question that I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench. Before agreeing to the inclusion of the defence pillar in the treaty (or next to the treaty) were the defence advisers, the defence chiefs, of the United Kingdom consulted as to the practicability of the proposed institutional set-up? It is very important for us to know whether, in going ahead in this way, the Government are taking with them the Armed Services, on which ultimately our defence and security depend. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 16, which, among other things, refers to payments out of the Community budget. Before doing so, I should like to offer the House, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, my apologies. Owing to an undertaking given to terminate the debate as close as possible to eleven o'clock, I shall be unable to move those amendments which would have enabled me to enlarge on the role of the European Parliament and the whole of the budgetary impact. Subject to the exigences of business tomorrow, I shall endeavour to seek a peg upon which to hang that particular hat. If I do not succeed, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
In regard to the particular amendment under consideration, quite an amount of expense is incurred in carrying out the European policy. These matters are dealt with in an undated document issued by the Foreign Office, reference FCO/EC Lords/1/93, which

109
sets out the whole of the financial basis in an indirect sense in carrying out the common foreign and security policy.
It is quite clear that expenditure will cover a number of heads. I should like the noble Baroness in her reply to confirm that the expenditure will be incurred under those heads, that it will be properly accounted for and that we shall be notified of the expense involved. It is quite clear that from time to time the Foreign Ministers of member states and representatives of the Commission will meet regularly, at least three times a year. That will cause extra public expenditure. Then the political directors from the member states and the Commission meet regularly once a month to discuss EPC issues and to prepare Ministers' discussions. Incidentally, it will be useful to find out more about those strange animals—political directors. By whom are they appointed? What are their precise functions? However, I pass over that point for the time being.
The Foreign Office memorandum goes on to say that European correspondents from member states and the Commission meet regularly, usually in parallel with the political directors, and are responsible for the day-to-day co-ordination of the European policy structure. From time to time experts from member states and the Commission meet regularly in working groups to discuss EPC issues in detail and report to the Political Committee. Could we have more particulars, including costs of the maintenance of the Political Committee? There is also an EPC secretariat, staffed with secondees from member states, based in Brussels and providing administrative back-up for the presidency. All that costs money. One likes to know where the money comes from, where it appears in the budget and who approves it.
Then there is also the confidential communications system which was set up in 1973 and which provides a direct communications link between member states, the EPC secretariat and the Commission. That also has a cost which surely it would be in order for us to know about. Finally, there are the member states' ambassadors and representatives of third countries who meet from time to time.
That all amounts to a formidable network or apparatus of committees, political directors, political committees, correspondents, ambassadors and everybody else, all set up under the Single European Act but now to be incorporated in a separate pillar. All we ask is for information about that. We should like to know how the cost will be covered in budgetary terms and, if I may say so, whether it will be subject to the same kind of Treasury scrutiny as the Treasury is reputed to exercise over the Community Budget. All that information would be very helpful. To provide it would be in the spirit of the amendment which I trust the noble Baroness will not take amiss and with which she will readily agree.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to speak specifically to Amendment No. 17, with which Amendment No. 16 is grouped. The Prime Minister has made it clear on many occasions that notwithstanding the partial concessions on sovereignty made in the Treaty of Rome, the Single European
110
Act and now the Treaty on European Union, essentially he favours a Europe of independent nation states not so very far removed from de Gaulle's L'Europe des patries.
This amendment ensures that there will be no creeping progress towards a unitary state and that the triple pillars of the treaty will remain intact. It does no more than dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of assurances already given to us by the Government. For that reason I hope that it will be accepted.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I had intended to speak at greater length but given the lateness of the hour I shall spare everybody my better glimpses of the obvious and make one statement on which I feel very strongly. I believe that it is not reasonable to accept once again a major commitment without the resources to match. Any great enterprise is only as successful as the investment and effort put into it. It is absolutely vital, if we are going wholeheartedly into the Community, that we should have an adequate supply of experienced diplomats and experts from the ministries, backed up by a new entry which is continually renewed, that will be available at an early stage to scrutinise proposals and Green Papers, to be involved in the early stages of policy-making and to play an active part working within or with the whole Community infrastructure of committees, where the French and others are so well established, as well as reinforcing the permanent representation in Brussels. They must also be in sufficient strength at home to brief Ministers. New Ministers will necessarily initially have only a superficial and peripheral knowledge of the complex European machinery.
The same argument holds good for the Ministry of Defence officials and the staff officers who will be increasingly called upon to perform the same task when it comes to harmonising the Community, the WEU, CSCE and NATO. To judge by the new defence White Paper, many such officers will be expected to wear three or four hats. They are doing so already. We must have enough skilled staff in the areas of foreign, defence and security policy to protect the paramount position of NATO and to ensure that the implications of any proposed action are properly related to our other national commitments and the resource implications clearly identified.
I expressed my anxiety at Committee stage over the fact that the Select Committee on Defence in the other place alone took no evidence on what the implications of Maastricht were. The implications will have to be clearly identified and recognised and provided for. The Minister's observations on Amendment No. 8 earlier today have said it all. It would be a classical case of Treasury short-term false economy, and a high cost will be paid by the nation for mistakes if we allow cuts in the FCO budget, already charged with such extraordinary commitments as Operation Rockingham, and the MoD and defence budget in this coming Autumn Budget.
We must first ensure that we have enough people with the right skills and experience to defend our interests and make our positive contribution in all areas of Community decision making. Otherwise the

111
skilled negotiation which won us the pillar concept and much else will have been wasted and we shall lose, not gain, from our entry because we shall be at risk of being unable to exercise influence for lack of staff resources. One of our chief strengths compared with other members of the Community has been the professional skills of our negotiators and the experience of our civil servants. We must not make their task impossible. I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister can reassure us on this question of adequate human resources.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is she really suggesting that the Government are incapable of running this country?
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, naturally not. But I think that I am entitled to express anxiety.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, it appears to me that Amendment No. 16 forces the United Kingdom to block spending on operational action under foreign and security policy unless prior consent for spending has been granted by an Act of Parliament. I do not know whether that is a realistic situation to place the United Kingdom in because very often decisions which may have to be made with other European countries jointly may have to be taken in an emergency and very quickly indeed. It leads me to think that it would be folly to place obstacles in the path of common funding of operational matters should those matters need to be decided on quickly and speedily.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House very long and unlike my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis in speaking in an earlier debate on the powers of the Commission, I do not intend to play the Minister's role in responding to what has been said. I would, however, like to make one or two comments.
I was not entirely clear in what respect the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was speaking to the amendment, although I have to admit that I agree with him that there are some ambiguities in relation to the position on a common defence policy. Indeed, I raised those at Second Reading. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us a little more on what the Government think will be the likely outcome of the arrangements that are made in the treaty with respect to a common defence policy.
But it is true that there are differences between different countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, pointed out, and they are set out in the House of Commons' research paper. But there are of course differences between members of the European Community on a wide range of issues. That does not mean that at some point we cannot work out those differences and come to an agreement.
I wish briefly to comment on what my noble friend Lord Bruce has said. I was puzzled by some of his remarks. Foreign ministers already meet regularly to discuss European political co-operation. Experts have been meeting regularly to discuss foreign and security questions. Although it costs money for foreign
112
ministers to meet, we should welcome the fact that they do meet. In an increasingly interdependent world that is a relatively small amount of expenditure which we can well afford. I have no doubt that the Minister will confirm that. I suspect that she will agree with what I am saying; namely, that the amount of extra expenditure involved in these new arrangements for the consideration of security and foreign policies is minimal over and above what is already spent in that area.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in responding to this debate on Amendment No. 16 which is taken with Amendment No. 17, I find myself in some difficulty, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. My noble friend Lord Beloff, except rather tangentially, did not actually refer to the content of Amendment No. 16 which he was moving.
However, he asked one or two key questions which I shall do my best to answer. In addition to that, perhaps I may ask him to read again the debates which we had both at Second Reading and at Committee stage in your Lordships' House, and the debate which we had on Amendment No. 2 earlier this evening. Nobody in this House would thank me if I were to regurgitate everything that was said on that amendment this evening so I do not intend to do so.
However, it is important to get clear in our minds that the common foreign and security policy pillar is very much a natural evolution from the European political co-operation which we have enjoyed since 1986–87 and the passing of the Single European Act. I say that having participated for about three years in the deliberations concerning -European political co-operation both with my noble friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, when he was Foreign Secretary, and on my own account when he could not be present.
We have evolved—mainly through the hard work of my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister—a sensible way forward on common and foreign security policy; that is, that we do together, and by unanimity, those things which we decide to do. But as I made clear to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch in an earlier debate, we can leave outside those defence questions which are covered by Article J.4(3) in our deliberations.
There was one real fear in what my noble friend Lord Beloff said tonight in moving Amendment No. 16. He referred to a draft paper of the European Parliament as if it were an established fact. He referred to commentaries in House of Commons' papers as if they also were established fact and not commentary. Neither is established fact. I know that the draft paper of the European Parliament expresses aspirations for the future of a kind which have often been expressed in the European Parliament. But it is not those issuing such papers or even writing them, who have decided such matters in the past and neither will they decide them in future. It is the member states by common accord under the CFSP pillar which will decide what happens in this vein. I can assure my noble friend Lord Beloff that nothing will happen without the agreement of the United Kingdom and other member states, such

113
as Denmark, which to a large extent share our views on the development of the Community. I really do believe that he is seeing ghosts where none exists.
I believe that it was my noble friend Lord Beloff who also commented about consultation with the defence staff before going down this path. If it was another noble Lord, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me. However, I must advise the House that it is Ministers who make policy in this country. We value greatly our Chiefs of Staff, as my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth knows, but they advise the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary. We rarely move except in concert, but occasionally Ministers will have to make decisions which, with all due respect to our excellent Chiefs of Staff, both currently and previously, they may not agree with in every detail. But it is Ministers who are elected to govern and Ministers who must take the responsibility for decisions based on the advice which is freely given. I know of nothing that we have done in moving towards the common foreign and security policy which is at variance with those normal procedures. I sincerely hope that my noble friend Lord Beloff will accept that such anxieties have no basis.
Amendment No. 16 is of considerable importance if one realises that its purpose is to prevent the Government agreeing to the payment of operational expenditure under the CFSP pillar from the Community budget without Parliament's specific approval. That brings me to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who queried the meetings of Foreign Ministers, political directors and European correspondents. Perhaps I may try to explain exactly what that entails. As I have said before, it is a natural evolution from European political co-operation in which we needed to have a proper means of communication between Foreign Ministers, the EPC secretariat and the Committee when it is actually sitting. European political directors are nominated by their own national governments. In our case, the political director is usually a deputy under-secretary of state at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. They are subject at all times to the direction of Ministers in the discussions they undertake. They are, indeed, advised by working groups, as are many different parts of the Community. If I want a medical judgment taken for family planning purposes, for instance, in the development field, as I am not an expert on family planning I have a working group of experts to advise me.
The same policy planning goes on with European political co-operation, shortly to be CFSP. The political directors, therefore, are national civil servants who meet together on a monthly basis under the direction of their Ministers to work out resolutions and the common positions which we frequently take to other bodies, such as the United Nations Security Council, in order to try to find a way forward to resolve some very deep problems. I give one example of the way in which EPC has worked together in the past. I refer to the Middle East peace process, where the directors have met, often after the defence chiefs have talked together, and have then advised Ministers who meet in political co-operation themselves.
114
The costs are no greater than the costs of the way in which we operate at the moment. The European correspondents, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred, are in fact the resident representatives in Brussels of the member states and carry out what I call the "day-to-day devilling" of the wording before the political directors come from London for their political director meetings in order to support Ministers when they meet in EPC. There will be no additional cost, but like the running costs of any organisation, it is subject to Treasury and departmental scrutiny. So one of the things that I should like to say on Amendment No. 16 is that the Community budget will be used for administrative expenditure. A decision to use the Community budget for any operational expenditure requires the unanimity of member states meeting in CFSP. The UK therefore has a block on its use if we do not agree. There may be circumstances in which it makes sense to use the Community budget to implement a policy agreed by unanimity. I do not want to chance my hand at guessing what that might be. I believe that we should have the possibility of agreement by unanimity.
If the agreement of Parliament to paying for expenditure under the CFSP pillar (properly chargeable to the Community budget under Article 199 of the Treaty of Rome, which would only be properly chargeable if it were a unanimous decision) were withheld for any reason, the UK would not be able to meet its treaty obligations. The whole of Amendment No. 16 goes against the spirit of the CFSP which my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary fought so hard to obtain upon the basis that we have now secured it. The article relating to that is Article J.11.2. I say that for reference only.
We went from discussing Amendment No. 16 and wider matters to some of the anxieties felt by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. I understand her anxieties. I know that she wishes to be helpful when she speaks of future budgetary discussions, but those have not yet taken place and your Lordships will be well aware that I would not be at liberty to disclose the content of those discussions even if they had taken place. But I can assure my noble friend that we have highly skilled staff. We are constantly ensuring that we have excellent new young skilled staff coming up the promotion pipeline to serve this nation at home, in the CFSP, in NATO and in the WEU. I see no reason for that to be changed. With the end of the cold war, we may find different ways of using those staff resources and better ways of using modern technology, but we intend to obtain the best possible value from all such resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, spoke to Amendment No. 17. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor made it clear on Second Reading on 8th June that the European Union has no legal personality. It is the Community which has that legal personality and therefore concludes international agreements on trade. It is not the Union that concludes those agreements. In the area of the common foreign and security policy, it is the member states that act and conclude any treaties that arise.

115
Therefore, the noble Lord's anxieties do not have the force that he gave them. It is clear that under CFSP it is the member states that act.
It would not be appropriate to include in legislation a new clause that binds the Government, such as Amendment No. 17 provides. It would not ,be appropriate to give the European Community a legal personality, because that would require, first, the accord of all member states at an inter-governmental conference; and, secondly, ratification by all member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. Here, that would require a further Act of Parliament. I do not believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, wants.
I hope that your Lordships will conclude from what I have said about Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 that neither are appropriate to what we are trying to achieve. We have safeguards to cover the expenditure problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred when speaking to Amendment No. 16.
As regards Amendment No. 17, I do not believe that the matter is appropriate for legislation. It is a matter for the conduct of foreign policy. Therefore, I ask my noble friend not to press Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. If they should be so pressed, I ask the House to reject them.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, since it is well past my bedtime I am particularly glad that the Minister has done her best to dispel my nightmares. Whether she has succeeded is a matter I must think about. Of course, I appreciate that what is said by one committee of the European Parliament is not an enormously important piece of evidence as to what may be going on, although it is not without its interest. However, I recollect that throughout the years we have constantly been assured that things which seem to us extravagant would never happen have still happened. I consider that I have a dynamic view of Europe's history whereas those who support the treaty have a static view. However, at this time of night I shall not pursue that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes before eleven o'clock.