EU Enlargement: Institutions and Reform (Hansard, 5 May 2004)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
Yes, my Lords. This is why we want to see early agreement on a constitutional treaty which will make EU institutions more accountable and effective.

Lord Grenfell
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Can she say whether documentation setting out the proposed revised drafts of those treaty articles dealing with institutional reform—I stress the word "documentation"—will be made available to Parliament so that it can be scrutinised before the European Council meeting in June?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, we are placing in the Library of the House copies of the presidency's proposals that were issued last week. I understand and hope that they are being copied and placed there this afternoon. They include provisions on the formation of the Council. We also expect that there will be a wider-ranging discussion on the institutional proposals and, I hope, a further presidency paper in the context of the General Affairs Council on 17 and 18 June. We will make those documents available to Parliament and I hope that they will be available in advance of the Council meeting in June.

§ Lord Marsh
My Lords, will these reforms also include, for example, reforming the Commission's accounts to a stage where they are acceptable to the auditors?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I am unable to answer that question, because it is one which would flow from the Commission. In my supplementary answer to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, I was concentrating on the papers coming from the presidency. I was referring to the first of those papers which was issued last weekend. The other questions which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, raised concern institutional issues and I. hope that papers on those matters will be made available. 1106 However, I will consider the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, about the accounts, as I know that questions about the Commission's auditing are of considerable interest in your Lordships' House. I will try to provide an answer to the noble Lord and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

§ Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, does the Minister accept that she has been guilty, no doubt inadvertently, of a serious non sequitur in her initial reply, which goes to the nub of the matter? The fact that enlargement of the Community requires some streamlining of its workings does not mean that this particular draft treaty, or anything like it, is acceptable. It contains a wide range of issues that have nothing to do with enlargement but involve a further massive centralisation of the European Union. Frankly, that is unacceptable.

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I am well aware that many noble Lords opposite find much of the draft treaty unacceptable. In doing so their judgment runs counter to that of your Lordships' own committee, which in its 41st report said that the treaty made plain the intention of the European Union to remain a union of sovereign states and it was clear that the balance of power would, shift from the Commission to member states". It also said that the treaty would reform the European Parliament and, make a contribution to democratic accountability". The fact is that judgments differ on this draft treaty, as the noble Lord well knows. I suggest to him that those judgments will continue to differ for some considerable time, but we will have a terrific opportunity to debate the matter on 11 May. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will be there to make his points.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords—

§ Lord Tomlinson
My Lords—

§ The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
My Lords, we have enough time to hear from both Benches.

§ Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that she was far too kind to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, when he started talking about "massive centralisation" arising from the convention and the discussions at the intergovernmental conference? Does she not accept that it is quite unacceptable to form that judgment given that he was a member of a government who created the Maastricht Treaty, where the centralising powers were much greater than anything visualised in the Convention and the draft constitution?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, it is always a good idea to be as kind as possible to the Opposition, who need as much help as they can get on some of these questions. I said to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, that his judgment ran counter to the judgment of your Lordships' own committee, which is 1107 far more in line with the views held by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson than those of the noble Lord, Lord Lawson.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, does the Minister further agree that some of the central proposals in the draft constitution would certainly make the European Union work more efficiently? I have in mind the simplification of the voting system, and the idea of streamlining the Commission. Regarding democratic accountability, does she also agree that the power to be given to a proportion of national parliaments to object to European Commission proposals on the grounds of subsidiarity is a long step forward towards recognising the roles of national parliaments as well as the European Parliament?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I can agree with much of that and I remind your Lordships that the central basis on which we are now operating the European Union was constructed when there were only six countries in it. There are now 25. Of course the EU can struggle on under the present arrangements, but it would operate far more effectively and with far more accountability if the sorts of proposals inherent in the draft treaty were brought forward. They include issues such as relative voting weights, the number of Commissioners, the chairing of Council meetings and the important point raised by the noble Baroness regarding subsidiarity—where there will be more power coming to national parliaments.

§ Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we shall debate these matters ad nauseam in the coming weeks and months? It is important that we should be fully informed, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said. Does she concede that when she quoted the Lords European Union Committee report on the nature of the constitution, she was unintentionally giving us a slightly misguided view? Has it not been made clear that when that report said that powers would be transferred to the member states, it meant that powers would be transferred to the European Council, which consists of Ministers from the member states? That is very different. Ministers are fond of taking that quotation and throwing it around. Should they not be a little more accurate in interpreting that in our future debates?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, I did not attempt to interpret the report. I quoted it verbatim, regarding the, shift from the Commission to member states". But I am perfectly happy to concede to the noble Lord that the mechanism is, of course, through Ministers, who are themselves accountable to their parliaments. It brings greater powers back to the member states. I agree with the noble Lord that that is the mechanism. If he will be kind enough to agree with the conclusion that the balance shifts from the Commission to the member states, we can input through the mechanism 1108 and agree on that point. However, the central point is what the noble Lord has to say about the committee's own decisions. The noble Lord is continuing to argue from a sedentary position, but the fact is that he may find himself in some difficulty over what your Lordships' committee has said. I, for one, feel very happy about it.
Perhaps I may take up the issue of debating this matter ad nauseam, as the noble Lord puts it. I do not think that we shall be doing that. If he feels like that, he need not debate it ad nauseam. I, for one, shall be very happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss this matter at any time.