Japan: EU Proposals (Hansard, 12 June 1995)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
My Lords, the Council approved conclusions on the Commission's communication on Japan which broadly endorsed the strategy outlined by the Commission in it. In examining any Commission proposal for export promotion expenditure, the Council will expect the Commission to demonstrate the effectiveness and value for money of each programme. The Council did not endorse the Commission's support for Japanese membership of the Security Council because there is no consensus in the Council on the question of Security Council enlargement.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, in asking this Question perhaps I may offer my apologies to the House for an error that has appeared in the reference number of the Commission proposal referred to. The reference on the Order Paper should be COM (95) 73 final and not COM (95) 13 final. I apologise to the House.
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. But is she not a little surprised that there should be no consensus in regard to the proposal of the Commission that the European Union should make representations to the United Nations in regard to the admission of Japan to the Security Council, as quite clearly there is no competence under the Treaty of Rome as amended under 1535 Title V? Is she not surprised that there should not have been unanimous rejection of the Commission proposal? Will she say who dissented from the Government's view that it lies outside Community competence? I should be most grateful if she would give some information on that point and also indicate what will be the Government's attitude at the next meeting of the Council, under the French presidency, at which, according to the Government's own memorandum, the proposal is likely to be made again.

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, it is our firm belief that the Community does not have a locus as regards questions relating to the structure of the UN Security Council. Nevertheless, we have made clear our national support for Japanese permanent membership of the Security Council and indeed that of Germany. But Security Council enlargement is a political question and, therefore, it is not for the Community. There is certainly no consensus among members of the European Union. As far as I could find out, Belgium was in favour, but nobody else. I have no doubt that that is exactly how it will be at e next meeting.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain why the Commission is involved in this matter at all? Surely, it has no locus in matters relating to foreign policy and defence. Ought not the Council of Ministers to tell the Commission that it should stop meddling in affairs which do not concern it?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I believe that that is exactly what the Foreign Affairs Council did on 29th May.

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, when the Government ratified the Maastricht Treaty, did they envisage the Commission using Title V, or the common foreign and security policy, to undermine our export initiative in the Far East and elsewhere?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, there is no question of the Commission undermining our export initiative in the Far East. As I told the House last week—my noble friend may remember this—the UK share of Japanese investment in the European Union is 41 per cent. and our visible exports last year were up 13 per cent. on 1993. But it does not do any harm to have a Commission executive training programme to which the United Kingdom sends more people than any other country in the European Union. The work that we do with the European Union enhances our bilateral activities and we get the benefit. That is just how it should be.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, has not the Minister made the Government's position crystal clear? As regards the Government's position and Japanese membership of the UN Security Council, is there any support from any other major country in the world? For example, is there any support from the United States or the Commonwealth? Can she say something more about the current position?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I am unable to tell the noble Baroness anything definite about the Commonwealth, although I believe that a number of individual members of the Commonwealth think that it 1536 would be a good idea. I know that there are several views within the United States. We shall see which one finally wins the day.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, is it not right that the activities of the Commission in this regard cannot possibly help or further the interests of the United Kingdom in any way at all?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, that is exactly why, apart from there being no locus as regards the UN Security Council, we do not believe that it would be a good idea, and neither do a number of other members of the European Union.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, I am most anxious to support the noble Baroness in the stand which the Government are taking. Will she kindly confirm the statement in the Government's explanatory memorandum that they do not endorse the expansion of the Commission's export promotion activities as being a sentiment that they will carry with them to the next meeting of the Council under the French presidency, at which the matter will undoubtedly be raised again? Can we have an expression of her fierce determination that that will be resisted?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I believe that your Lordships are well aware of my fierce determination on such questions. What is important is that we support programmes if they are complementary to our bilateral programmes and demonstrate value for money. We shall not give competence to a body which should not have that competence. That remains the position for the next and all subsequent meetings.