IGC and the Maastricht Treaty (Hansard, 3 May 1995)

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the consequence of Article N is that all member states may veto treaty changes that they find unacceptable.

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that the price for our agreement to any new arrangements which the other countries may wish to make at the forthcoming IGC and which may not suit us should be a net repatriation of sovereignty to this country? Does he further agree that that might create the variable geometry which appears to be favoured by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, my noble friend raises a whole series of hypothetical matters. The IGC is a multi-party negotiation. We have a number of positive changes that we want to see occur in the European Union. No doubt other member states equally have ideas, and we shall work together to try to bring forward as many of our positive ideas as we can.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, can we be assured—

Noble Lords
Order, order!

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I am most obliged to my noble friend. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Cabinet—the whole Cabinet—will first of all read what is proposed at the IGC and be made to understand the implications of it? I say that bearing in mind that after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the Prime Minister said that he had won game, set and match—which he had not; the Foreign Secretary, having signed the treaty, said that now he had better read it; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer recommended the treaty and then admitted to the Tory Party Conference that he had not read it.

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, yes.

§ Lord Peyton of Yeovil
My Lords, did my noble friend the Minister find it as difficult as I did to understand the terminology of my noble friend's supplementary question? Does he agree with me that the stream of rather negative questions about Europe is likely to do nothing to improve the Government's negotiating position?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, my noble friend hits the nail absolutely four-square on the head.

§ Lord Barnett
My Lords, the Minister said a little earlier in answer to this Question that the Government have a number of positive proposals to put before the IGC. 1373 If the list is so long that he cannot give them lo us now, would he care to give them to the European Union Select Committee, of which I have the honour to be a member; or would he drop us a note to tell us what they are?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the proposals include developing further inter-governmental co-operation on defence; common foreign and security policy; justice and home affairs; the establishment of a fairer voting system; ensuring better budgetary discipline; embedding subsidiarity further into the treaty; enhancing the role for national parliaments; improving financial management of the Community budget and effective action against fraud; and better implementation of European Community law. I hope that for now that will be a start.

§ Lord Harmar-Nicholls
My Lords, am I to understand that my noble friend's answer is a reiteration of the Government's belief that neither Article N nor any other part of the Maastricht Treaty can be interpreted in a way that would interfere with the opt-outs that we obtained at the Maastricht discussions?

§ Lord Inglewood
Yes, my Lords, that is right.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords—

Noble Lords
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra!

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have the text of the treaty in front of me and that it contains an obligation for any agreement to changes to be the result of accord between the member states? In spite of that, will the Minister give the House, and indeed the country, an assurance that the Government will use their position in the Inter-Governmental Conference to do their very best about the growing bureaucracy of Brussels, which is as repugnant to the country as it is to many Members of this House, in spite of the limitations placed upon them by Article N of the treaty?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I can confirm that the Government will enter the negotiations aiming to secure the best possible agreement for the British people. One of our concerns is to curtail excessive centralised bureaucracy from Brussels.

§ Lord Ezra
My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that a few weeks ago my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead introduced a Motion in this House calling on the Government to take a positive attitude in the negotiations to come? Does he also recall that the Government's response was that indeed that would be the case? Would it therefore be better to think about positive proposals in the forthcoming negotiations rather than considering ways in which we can turn down the proposals of others?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. We are committed to entering the negotiations in a positive manner. We want to use them to secure the best deal that we can for Britain. We believe that by going out and being positive we are most likely to achieve that goal.

§ Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, I welcome the reply of the noble Lord and the inclusion in particular of a reference to embedding subsidiarity. Will he expand further on whether that means that the 1374 Government will interpret "subsidiarity" in the same way as other member governments; namely, as applying to local and regional levels as well as the national government level? Does his reply also mean that the Government will sign the charter guaranteeing British people the right to local self-government?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the nature of the subsidiarity principle is that matters best left to member state governments should be left to member state governments. With regard to local government, it is for this Parliament to determine these matters.

§ Lord Jenkins of Hillhead
My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, powerful as his words always are, put me irresistibly in mind of the statement of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge when the railway was to come to Cambridge? He wrote in protest saying that the proposal was as repugnant to the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge as he was sure it was to Almighty God. Nevertheless, will he not take too much notice of the noble Lord, powerfully though he speaks, and pursue a more constructive line?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall pay regard to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, as we consider appropriate, as we equally pay regard to the views of Almighty God.

§ Lord Buxton of Alsa
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister remind the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that the railway driver was an Englishman, or a British subject, which makes a very great difference in my view? Does going to the IGC in a positive frame of mind with positive proposals mean increasing or decreasing the subservience of this country to Brussels?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, it is not a matter of subservience to Brussels. We are trying to increase the potential for Britain and the British people.