§ 2.52 p.m.
§ Viscount Waverleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
When the agenda will be agreed for the Inter-Governmental Conference in Nice.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)My Lords, we expect the European Council in Feira on 19th and 20th June to confirm that the IGC agenda should remain focused on the institutional changes necessary for enlargement, and that negotiations should be completed this year. In addition, the presidency will report on discussions so far and recommend the inclusion of a few additional agenda items. We expect these to include areas such as reform of the European courts, the composition of the Community's other institutions and bodies, and closer co-operation. We are content to see these issues on the agenda.
§ Viscount WaverleyMy Lords, how can the United Kingdom's European participation be considered to be impacting centre stage when it quite manifestly is not, given our current approach? Why is our reputation with our partners, the Commission and, most importantly, the British electorate seemingly being diminished by a creeping on-off engagement without consistent arguments being articulated before what will be the most draconian Summit since Maastricht?
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I am surprised that the noble Viscount should so describe the IGC. I cannot join with him in his assessment. Our reputation has not been diminished. Britain has very much gone to the core of Europe. We are extremely well respected. The IGC agenda is clear. That agenda has been well established. It has been agreed. Provision was made for the inclusion of a few related additional matters. These have now been thrashed out.
This IGC is very much on course. We are dealing with precisely the issues that Britain wanted to be dealt with. We are confident that we shall be ready and able to deal with those issues in a productive way.
§ Lord Willoughby de BrokeMy Lords, is it correct that the French Government wish to put the charter of fundamental human rights on the agenda? Do the British Government agree that that should be part of the treaty?
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I hope that we shall have an interesting debate on the charter of 1637 rights on Friday when I am sure I shall be able to expand more fully on the subject. I make clear that Her Majesty's Government welcomed the opportunity to raise the visibility of those rights. The charter should preserve the legal certainty, including full consistency with the ECHR, stick to existing rights, and be consistent with other EU policies and objectives. At present we do not see that this charter should be anything other than a declaratory charter. We think that this is the best way to raise visibility while maintaining legal certainty.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, the Minister will surely agree that the agenda that she would favour is completely different from the agenda that Mr Joschka Fischer wants. Has my noble friend read his speech of 12th May to Humboldt University entitled From Confederation to Federation? It sets out clearly the German point of view—it is not a personal point of view—towards a country called Europe stretching from the Urals to the Atlantic. Can the noble Baroness emphatically disagree with that view and give some leadership to the other countries which do not see the German-French axis vision of Europe as they do?
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, Mr Fischer made clear that he was speaking in a personal capacity, and not as Foreign Minister nor as a representative of the German Government. We welcome his contribution to the debate on the future of Europe, which sets out some familiar views. We can support some elements of his speech. For instance, we support his emphasis on the need for early enlargement and his recognition that political integration should not go against the grain of the national institutions and traditions. But clearly we do not share his view on the EU constituent treaty or a full parliamentary federation. We want a united Europe of states not a united states of Europe. It is right to remember that France, too, has welcomed his view and expressed interest, but no more.
§ Lord Howell of GuildfordMy Lords, I fully understand that the agenda for the conference has not been finalised, let alone the agenda for the subsequent treaty of Nice. However, is the Minister aware that some of us are beginning to feel a shade misled by the propaganda about the nature of the conference—not by the noble Baroness, I hasten to say, but by government spin generally? We have been told again and again that it is a tidying-up conference; that it is tightly focused; and that it is all about the Amsterdam left-overs and the housekeeping needed for enlargement. But it has become plain that it is a conference about the major issues affecting the future of Europe and its shape. It is becoming a Christmas tree on which everyone hangs their favourite cause in relation to European reform.
The Minister referred to a tight focus for the conference's agenda.
§ Lord Howell of GuildfordHow can that be reconciled with the apparent push to put on the agenda defence issues, the question of enhanced flexibility and co-operation and the charter of fundamental rights? How can it be reconciled with the view of Commissioner Verheugen that EU institutions are having heart failure? These are enormous issues. I do not believe that they should be suppressed.
§ Lord Howell of GuildfordIt is time that the Government took a lead in debate instead of pretending that nothing very important is happening.
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I shall say as clearly as I can that the statements made by this Government in relation to the focus of the IGC remain true. We cannot account for others who may ill report that which is in fact happening. But we have kept it focused. The noble Lord will know that it is of incredible importance for us to be ready by 2002 for the prospect of enlargement. The issues to be dealt with by the IGC are to that end.
Of course additional matters will be discussed but that is what it will be—a discussion. There is no indication that we shall go outside that which I have told the House on other occasions or what I have said today.
§ Lord RoperMy Lords, the Minister will know of the interest on these Benches in the progress on defence, made last year at the Helsinki and Cologne summits. Will she confirm that the Council's legal advisers have ruled that there will be no need for any treaty amendments and that therefore that item need not feature on the IGC agenda?
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is right. There is a clear view that a treaty amendment is not necessary and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it does not form part of the IGC.
§ Lord Pearson of RannochMy Lords, is it not true that the Government's own White Paper—