HL Deb 29 April 2004 vol 660 cc888-91

11.24 a.m.

Lord Howell of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:

What proposals they have put to their European Union partners for an alternative treaty, setting out and simplifying appropriate rules for an enlarged Union, in the event of failure to agree the current draft constitutional treaty or to ratify it by one or more member states.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, none.

Lord Howell of Guildford

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that short and concise but none the less slightly disappointing reply. Would it, in fact, not be prudent and in the interests of the United Kingdom and the enlarged European Union—which comes into being this weekend and we greatly welcome—to have some kind of plan B, especially as the noble Baroness's close and very well informed colleague Gisela Stuart MP and many other very well informed people have said that we should tear up this constitutional draft and start again? Europe needs something different and more modern from what we are being asked to look at over the next few weeks.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear in another place last week that the Government believe that if the treaty contains our essential points—and I remind your Lordships that there is still a very tough negotiation ahead—it will be in our interests to sign it. Unilaterally proposing a completely different treaty at the moment would be unrealistic and pointless. Worse, it would be against Britain's interests because it would undermine our own basis of negotiation.

Lord Richard

My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure she is—that it really would be the most extraordinary way to negotiate if, in the middle of trying to negotiate a treaty which is plan A, you should disclose to the other side with whom you are negotiating what plan B is? I am delighted that she has rejected that extraordinary proposition.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, when I looked at the Order Paper I could not help wondering about the genesis of the Question. I found it so breathtaking that I thought it could not possibly have come from the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who as we all know is a very sensible and serious man. Perhaps he can put it to whoever in the Conservative Party thought that this was a jolly good Question to table that it is customary to finish trying to negotiate one treaty on a subject before proposing alternative wording for another one.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire

My Lords, does the Minister find it a little paradoxical that now that the current Government have adopted Harold Wilson's position on a referendum, the Conservative Opposition have adopted Tony Benn's position, which is that all other governments should be forced to renegotiate on what we think might be changed? Is she aware of any efforts that the Conservative Party may have made to discover whether any serious parties in any other governments within the EU might sympathise with its position?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that I think he needs to have a little chat with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on that point. I cannot argue for what the Conservative Party has been up to. I know very well what the Government have been up to. The Government have been up to ensuring that we argue for the points I have put before your Lordships on a number of occasions. We have stated those in a White Paper and been open and quite clear about them. Perhaps the noble Lord and the noble Lord from the Opposition Front Bench need to have a quiet word together.

Lord Roberts of Conwy

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with the proposition put forward by Giscard d'Estaing this morning that a "no" to the constitution in a referendum is not necessarily "no" to Europe and British membership of the EU?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

Yes, my Lords, I do agree with that. However, I also agree with the other very serious point that Giscard d'Estaing made—that a "no" would mean that Britain would be pushed to the sidelines and lose its influence in the European Union. We cannot quote him on the consequences—perhaps it can be done on other points—and say, "Isn't that right?", without giving the whole quote, which was that we would lose influence in Europe and be pushed to the sidelines—in effect, where we were before 1997, not where we are now.

Lord Harrison

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the draft treaty does indeed set out and simplify the appropriate roles for the enlarged Union and that failure to ratify the proposed draft treaty will actually increase red tape for British business?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I agree that the draft treaty sets out and simplifies the rules for an enlarged EU. What I particularly welcome about the decision on the referendum, which I believe is the right decision, is that we are now able to stop talking about process and start talking about the substance of this draft treaty. I, for one, welcome that.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords, does the Minister not realise that some of us find it a little curious that the Government appear to have been bounced into agreeing to a meeting on 18 June at which it is intended to agree the final version when, as of yesterday, the current draft was not available to the Government? Indeed, the Minister for Europe told the EU Committee of this House yesterday that the Government did not expect it until 15 May. There really is quite inadequate time between 15 May and 18 June to consider the new version. Parliament will have virtually no opportunity to comment. Given that the matter will take at least a year after any agreement that may be reached on 18 June, surely it would have been better to take a little longer on the preparation as there have been a lot of changes since December.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I do not believe that the Government have been bounced, as the noble Lord puts it, into anything. The Government hope to reach agreement on 18 June. No one can be certain whether agreement will be reached. There are still many difficulties. Indeed, I emphasised the problems with negotiation in my answers to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. Those are the problems that the UK Government perceive. No doubt other governments will also have problems. The noble Lord says that too short a time is available. We are very clear about our negotiating objectives; we do not need the full draft treaty to see that, but the matter will involve extremely hard work. Of course, your Lordships and another place will rightly want to go through the draft treaty once it is before your Lordships regarding any legislation that the Government bring forward.