General Election: Comments by EU Commissioners (Hansard, 12 March 1997)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood)
My Lords, no, we have no such plans.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, perhaps I may express my disappointment at the less than hoped for robust Answer to my Question. Is the Minister aware that the responsibilities and duties of individual Commissioners in the European Community, as laid down in Article 157 of the treaty, do not include a duty to intervene in political matters inside member states or even between member states? Is he also aware that the attitude of some, but by no means all, Commissioners over the past few months has become increasingly strident, involving outright criticism of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Opposition? It is not the business of those Commissioners to intervene in political matters within and between member states. I was rather hoping that the Government were going to do something about it.

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that there is no duty on Commissioners to intervene in matters within a member state. The Commissioners' duties are to be independent of member state governments and to act within accordance of their obligations set down in the treaties in the furtherance of the Community's business. It is no part of the Commissioners' role to become involved in internal politics of any member state, although as private individuals they may participate in elections.

§ Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, bearing in mind that European Commissioners take an oath of exclusive allegiance to the European Community, that Privy Counsellors take an oath of allegiance to the Crown and that my right honourable friend Sir Leon Brittan is both a Privy Counsellor and a European Commissioner, can my noble friend the Minister say which oath the Government would expect Sir Leon to honour if the interests of the United Kingdom and the Community were to be in conflict?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, since that latter eventuality is not the case, there is no inherent problem.

§ Lord Richard
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I find his answer to the question quite robust? It is an extraordinary question and deserves the short answer that he gave.
Is the Minister also aware that the Commission is not a monastic order and that no Commissioner takes a vow of silence—nor for that matter a vow of chastity or obedience either? Will the Government be firm in rejecting this quite extraordinary attempt by certain Members of this House to curb the right of two electors in a British election from expressing their views?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I am most reassured that the noble Lord can from personal experience confirm that the Commissioners are human. The position as he expressed it is absolutely right.

Lord Renton
My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the European Court even has power to issue an injunction in those circumstances? Is he aware that even if it has such power, it could not exercise it unless there was clear evidence of an intention by members of the Commission to take part in our general election?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, my noble friend is right. There is a series of procedural and other legal impediments to achieving what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, seeks. In order to gain an injunction, it is necessary for there to be an abuse which is threatening. In this case there is no such threat.

§ Lord Thomson of Monifieth
My Lords, the Foreign Secretary of this country is making speeches in the Community critical of the member state in whose country he is making the speech. That is a right in the interests of freedom of speech within the European Union. So is it not strange that there should be this attempt to prevent European Commissioners, including those from this country, expressing their views? Would the Minister like to speculate on why the Eurosceptics on both sides of this House are now running so scared?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I do not stand at this Dispatch Box to indulge in speculations. However, as the noble Lord says, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is fully entitled to contribute to the debate about European issues.

§ Lord Buxton of Alsa
My Lords, will my noble friend tell us the answer had the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, referred to Whitehall civil servants? That is relevant to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. If the position is different as regards Whitehall, will the Minister explain the difference, and why?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, there is a considerable difference between the European Commission and the 302 domestic Civil Service. However, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asks Her Majesty's Government to seek an injunction, prohibiting individual commissioners or any officer acting on their behalf from participating by speech or otherwise in any of the matters at issue or under discussion among the electorate of the United Kingdom in the forthcoming general election". Effectively that means that they can conduct no business as it affects the United Kingdom. Were that to apply to the United Kingdom, it would apply no doubt also to other states of the European Community, and that would effectively drive the European Community into a state of complete gridlock.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, is the Minister aware that Eurosceptics, or Eurorealists as I prefer to call them, are certainly not running scared? No one who stands up for this country and for the continuation of democratic rule by our elected representatives needs to be running scared.
Are the European Commissioners who make such incursions into our national life doing so with the use of taxpayers' money? Is that illegal? It would certainly be illegal during an election campaign.

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, no one would accuse the noble Lord of running scared of anyone.
The European Commission is funded by taxpayers' money throughout the Community. As long as there is a general election within this country, the Commission is therefore in receipt of taxpayers' money, some of it emanating from this country.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, does the Minister accept that Members of this House are not in the strongest position to talk about the observation of democracy? The two Commissioners about whom we are talking were previously Members of another place and have been elected politicians. They were nominated by Her Majesty's Government to their present clearly political positions. I do not see the fundamental difference between the healthy debate that we have in this House and the healthy contribution to a broadly European debate which members of the College of Commissioners have. Does the Minister view the position in the same way?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, the noble Lord has expressed his opinions most clearly for the benefit of the House.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a great deal of fuss about nothing, since neither Mr. Neil Kinnock nor Sir Leon Brittan is likely to have even a minimal effect on the voting intentions of British citizens?

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I do not know whether I can speak for the general election. However, were the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, able to have a vote, it is unlikely that the utterances of either of those two gentlemen would affect the way that he voted.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, is the Minister aware that his answers give me cause for disappointment 303 in comparison with those given to me directly by M. Delors during his period in office? As he will be aware, I criticised M. Delors for having criticised our British Prime Minister at the time—which he had the impertinence to do. In reply to me, in a public gallery and televised, he turned round and said, "Well, it's a free country, isn't it?". That is a far more convincing answer than the noble Lord has given me.
Is the Minister further aware that in the course of an interview given to the distinguished correspondent of The Times, Mr. Bremner, on 7th February, Jacques Santer delivered himself of the following observations: Impatience over Britain's approach to Europe could lead its European Union partners to sidestep London, requiring a future government to choose whether it wants Britain to stay in the EU, Jacques Santer, the President of the Commission, said yesterday". He also insisted that: the project for a single currency was 'not just an economic process but a profound movement towards political integration'. The EU's founding fathers had intended it as a step towards 'an economic government of Europe'". That is not a matter that is generally accepted within the United Kingdom by any party. He had no business to make any observation as to what was or was not the attitude of the British Government.

§ Lord Inglewood
My Lords, I thought the noble Lord had just explained that it was a free country and one could express oneself in the way one wanted.