§ Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Whether the recently announced intention of the Foreign Secretary to make a series of speeches in countries of the European Union to explain directly to the electorate of those countries the Government's policy on the further development of the EU and the reasons therefore is to be reciprocated by an invitation by Her Majesty's Government to the Foreign Secretaries of other EU governments to explain directly to the United Kingdom electorate their governments' policies on the development of the EU.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)My Lords, representatives of other European Union governments are welcome to speak in the United Kingdom about their governments' policies on the development of the European Union.
§ Lord HoosonMy Lords, does the Minister agree that the Foreign Secretary's statement that he intended to appeal to the electorate of Europe over the heads of governments is a departure from the convention, often repeated by the Government, of the sovereignty of the other nation states as represented by their democratically elected governments? I believe that it is a welcome departure; but does the Minister agree that invitations should be extended to the foreign ministers of other countries to come here and give to our electorate the benefit of their views as the Foreign Secretary considers that their electorate would benefit from his views?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, there is no question of the Foreign Secretary going over the heads of governments. Each of his visits includes meetings with political counterparts, as well as discussions with students, young people and groups of ordinary voters. Of course, during the past two years we have had the opportunity to listen to Klaus Kinkel, Werner Hoyer, Wim Kok and to Jacques Chirac, who spoke to both Houses of Parliament. It is a two way process. We believe in free speech; we should be able to speak there and they here.
Lord RentonMy Lords, when the Foreign Secretary meets other foreign secretaries, will he take advantage of the opportunity to point out to them that the obligation under the Rome Treaty to harmonise all the laws of 15 nations with 11 different languages and several types of legal systems has become a chaotic task 322 which can scarcely be properly fulfilled and that that therefore the Rome Treaty should be revised accordingly?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, as my noble friend knows, I have much sympathy with him in the complexity of 15 nations looking at their own systems in parallel. That has been one of the reasons why we have firmly supported flexibility. We wish to avoid the imposition of burdensome obligations which build up resentment on any particular country. Flexibility will allow the European Union to harness the wide range of diversity that it embraces and that will help us to avoid the issues which are not in the best interests of the British people.
§ Lord BarnettMy Lords, is the Minister aware that I would very much agree with government policy—
§ Lord BarnettMy Lords, I would if I knew what it was! I assume that it is the policy which the Foreign Secretary is espousing around Europe; that the Government are in favour of keeping open the option on the single currency and not in favour of pulling out of a European Union. However, will the Minister confirm reports that a fellow Cabinet Minister—namely, the Chairman of the Conservative Party—has sent letters to parliamentary candidates telling them how they can best say how they disagree with the Government in that they would never, in any circumstances, support a single currency?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, the noble Lord summed up the policy precisely. That is exactly what the Foreign Secretary has said. We shall see what is in the best interest of Britain, and I am delighted that the noble Lord agrees with that. As regards the Chairman of the Conservative Party, I believe that no such letters have gone out. However, the noble Lord knows only too well from his time at the Treasury that rumours are halfway round the world before the truth has a chance of coming out.
§ Lord TebbitMy Lords, perhaps I may take my noble friend closer to the Question on the Order Paper. Is she aware that last year, as is my custom these days, I attended the Labour Party conference and I observed large video screens upon which appeared a number of continental politicians imploring us all to vote Labour? Is not that a rather sharper interference in our affairs than a discussion about European policy in the capitals of Europe?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, what the Labour Party gets up to at its conferences is always an eye opener to us all, but I am grateful to my noble friend. The important point about the Question and my noble friend's supplementary question is that they illustrate the difference in attitude. We are prepared to have free speech and to go through each and every aspect of the European Community to see what is and 323 what is not in our interests. It is clear from our discussions and from the report of the Irish presidency that there is a great deal of support for UK ideas in important areas. When we started to talk about those issues, we were told that we should be quiet because no one would support us. Many are now supporting us on the importance of national parliaments and in reviewing European legislation; and many others are working with us in opposing some of the suggested changes which have taken the headlines in recent months.
§ Baroness BlackstoneMy Lords, apparently Mr. Rifkind is embarking on the 20th century equivalent of the Grand Tour. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House whether Mr. Rifkind's views on Europe are the same as Mr. Portillo's; whether those of Mr. Portillo are the same as Mr. Clarke; and whether those of Mr. Clarke are the same as those of Mr. Howard. Following what my noble friend said, perhaps the Minister will tell the House what the Foreign Secretary is telling the electorates of Europe about the fact that apparently some 150 Conservatives have said that they will put in their election address a pledge that they are totally against a single currency, in spite of the fact that the Leader of the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister, is in favour of a wait-and-see policy on monetary union.
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that all Members of the Cabinet are in favour of waiting to see exactly what is the situation on a single currency before any decision is taken. If that is then recommended and the Houses of Parliament accept it, there will be a referendum for the people.
To turn to the Foreign Secretary's visit to a number of capital cities, his aim is to spell out our policy of the modern vision of the European Union as a partnership of nations for the very reasons that my noble friend Lord Renton mentioned. The European Union must be more than a free trade area but co-operation must be in a form with which people are comfortable. We must balance supranational action where that is needed with intergovernmental action in more sensitive areas. The day that one hears that the Labour Party might even consider that is perhaps the day it will have more credibility regarding a policy on Europe.
Lord Bruce of DoningtonMy Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that the visits by the counterparts of our own Foreign Secretary in the member states are very welcome indeed? Surely the Government will agree that the more exposed those statesmen are to the predominant views in Britain on this matter, the better it will be. But will the Minister bear in mind also that the British public do not like periodic political interventions by members of the European Commission?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, the way in which Europe works needs very careful examination. The Foreign Secretary and his colleagues are doing that. If Foreign Ministers of other countries visit this country, it is important that they should explain their integrationist vision, which they hold very sincerely but which we do 324 not believe to be in the interests of a partnership of nations. Those advocates of integration must explain its limits. They must explain the difference between their vision of a common currency, common defence, employment, immigration, social policy and majority voting, because people are genuinely anxious about the constant process of change. That is why the Foreign Secretary has spelt out so clearly and with great acceptance exactly what we mean by a partnership of nations, and exactly how we can overcome the complexities of being currently a 15-nation European Union, but also possibly a larger one in a few years' time.
§ Lord Thomson of MonifiethMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her original Answer to my noble friend's original Question was a little disingenuous since the Foreign Secretary made it clear that he was seeking to appeal to public opinion in countries on the mainland of Europe over the heads of governments? Is not the Government's real purpose to swing the opinion of voters in Europe or voters in this country by the back door?
§ Baroness Chalker of WallaseyMy Lords, the Foreign Secretary's purpose is to achieve a sensible outcome of the IGC in June, and to make sure that Europe continues on a sound path for the benefit of all the peoples of Europe.