HL Deb 30 March 1995 vol 562 cc1708-10

3.18 p.m.

Lord Bruce of Donington

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will add to the agenda and scope of the Intergovernmental Conference, as set out in their memorandum FCO/19C/95 of March 1995, the question of the functions, powers and structures of the European Community institutions, including the need to make changes where necessary.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, some institutional questions, such as the number of commissioners and the arrangements for qualified majority voting, are already on the agenda for next year's IGC. Other items may be added.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that reply from which I gather that he does not propose to follow the line of action suggested in the Question.

As the President of the Commission has already instructed the member states of the Intergovernmental Conference about the conclusions to which the Commission requires them to come, does the noble Lord agree that perhaps the time has arrived when the member states themselves ought to consider the position of the Commission? Instead of the Commission being the master over the whole process, it might be well worth while for the Council to assert its authority and for the Commission to become its servant rather than its master.

I only ask for the matter to be considered; I do not act as an advocate. Does the noble Lord believe that these matters ought to receive some consideration after all this time?

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, the European Commission is not in a position to give instructions to the Council of Ministers. It is the Council of Ministers that takes decisions in the European Union. Under Article N of the Maastricht Treaty it is quite clear that the government of any member state or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the treaties on which the union is founded. It is the Council that determines the agenda of the IGC.

The Earl of Clanwilliam

My Lords, as regards what the noble Lord said, by what authority does the Commission have the audacity, without the consent of the Council of Ministers, to address itself in provocative terms to the sovereign nation of Canada?

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, later today my noble friend Lord Howe will answer a Question on the matter and it will be more to your Lordships' benefit to address that question to him. There will then be a great deal more time in which the matter can be widely canvassed.

Lord Richard

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the history of the past 20 years in Europe might have been better had the relationship between the Commission and the member states been more along the lines indicated by my noble friend Lord Bruce? The idea that the Commission is the master of the Council of Ministers is a travesty to anyone who knows anything about the way in which it operates.

Leaving aside whether the Commission is master or servant, will the Government confirm that they do not see the Intergovernmental Conference as a kind of constitutional convention drafting a framework for future European co-operation, but rather they see it—at least I thought they did—as an Opportunity for assessing the effects of Maastricht so far and of pointing out some of the difficulties which might arise in the relatively near future?

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, described in general terms the Government's view about the IGC. After all, the Maastricht Treaty has only been working for about a year. These are early days and we must give the treaty time to bed down. We wish to see a thorough examination of the detail of how matters are working and where we can produce suggestions for improvement so that they work better not only for ourselves but for other member states. That is the approach that we shall adopt.

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, I distance myself entirely from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, but is the Minister aware that on the clear and specific wording of Article N ii, read in connection with Article B of the Maastricht Treaty, "the aim"—that is the aim of the Intergovernmental Conference— is of ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanisms and the institutions of the Community"?

Why is that not even mentioned in the brief provided by the Foreign Office? Was it because the Foreign Office did not know or was it because it did not want your Lordships' Select Committee to know? Alternatively, was it merely trying to give the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, the opportunity to table a Question?

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cockfield for drawing your Lordships' attention to the exact wording of the treaty. No, I do not believe that the Foreign Office wishes to give additional opportunities to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, to table Questions on European matters. As regards the Question which he asked, I believe that the reply I gave responded accurately to it.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, I appreciate that the Government may wish to play down the IGC. Is the Minister aware that senior figures in the German Government and the German Parliament are pressing for quick implementation of economic and monetary union and a single currency? They also advocate the abolition of the three pillars—defence, foreign affairs and home affairs —and their incorporation into the Community idea along with qualified majority voting. Will the Government give the assurance that they will oppose all those ideas coming from the Germans and also from elsewhere?

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, the noble Lord asked two separate questions. The first related to economic and monetary union. As he knows, there are provisions in place in the treaty relating to those matters which are outside the scope of the IGC.

As regards the other matters, the noble Lord referred to German ideas which are at variance with the ideas of the British Government. The British Government are clear that the creation of the pillared structures in the Maastricht Treaty provides a good basis for future co-operation. We believe that the IGC should seek to improve their working and not replace them. That is our position.

Baroness Rawlings

My Lords, does the Minister agree that enlargement and reform of the common agricultural policy are subjects to be included on the IGC agenda? If so, does he accept that to reach a successful result on these two subjects a conclusion must be agreed on the controversial subject of qualified majority voting, which he has mentioned?

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Rawlings is right about enlargement which is on the IGC agenda. We understand that were the common agricultural policy in its present form, together with the structural funds, to remain unchanged, the joining of the four Visegrad countries would add an extra £39 billion a year to European Community budget expenditure. We consider that that is unsustainable. It provides an overriding imperative for common agricultural policy reform.