Europe after Maastricht : interim report : report, together with the Proceedings of Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendices : first report [of the] Foreign Affairs Committee.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Foreign Affairs Committee.
Date:
1992
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Europe after Maastricht : interim report : report, together with the Proceedings of Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendices : first report [of the] Foreign Affairs Committee. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    19/96 (page 3)
    [Mr Rowlands Contd] 3(b) itself. I read with some interest Mr Martin Howe’s submission from the Society of Conservative Lawyers in which he says that effec- tive implementation of the principle of subsidiarity requires the visions of basic definition in Article 3(b), otherwise any structural protocol or declara- tion designed to implement it will rest on unsound foundations. You seem to be implying that all you are going to do is issue a series of declarations on these unsound foundations of the original Article? (Mr Hurd) No, what we are going to do is put it into effect. I believe even if the Article were not in the Treaty the political impetus of putting this into effect, for changing the way in which the Community approaches proposals for legislation, would remain. We need the legal underpinning of Article 3(b), but the political imperative would be there anyway. 7. You are not going to change Article 3(b)? (Mr Hurd) No, we are not going to change Article 3(b). We believe that Article 3(b) provides a good legal underpinning. What we are intending to do, even in advance of ratification, is to modify and change the way in which the Community takes its decisions so as to tackle one of the main anxi- eties, not just in Britain, that the Community tries to do too much; and tries to set its hand for quite good reasons and often under pressure from inter- est groups (including British interest groups) to detailed intervention in the life of the citizen and the nation state. I think we would be doing that even if we had not succeeded in getting Article 3(b) in the Treaty, but Article 3(b) provides what we believe is a good underpinning. 8. You think it is not an unsound foundation? (Mr Hurd) No, we believe it is a good founda- tion. Mr Sumberg 9. Foreign Secretary, you outline as one of the aims of the summit that you must show the citi- zens of Europe that their concerns have been noted and that they must be shown the benefits of the Community. Would you not agree that most of my constituents, and most of yours I imagine, have a totally wrong view of Maastricht, they do not understand it, they are desperate for explanation, they are desperate to be told what those benefits are and that there is an urgent need to do it? Perhaps you would like to tell the Committee the sort of thing you have in mind and, in particular, to amplify the announcement you made at the Conservative Conference about informing the pop- ulation of the benefits of the Treaty and where the Government sees the way ahead? (Mr Hurd) Certainly. I think a number of our constituents are desperate for further information. I think it is not entirely easy to estimate what pro- portion, but there is certainly that concern, first, and it is reasonable that it should be met. What we propose (and the decision to go ahead will not be taken until next week) is that there should be a booklet (which is ready) which would be available to the public which deals not just with the Treaty but with the way in which the Community takes its decisions; how that would be changed with the Treaty; what is meant, for example, by the pillars which experts have talked about for a long time now. I am sure you are right, the idea is not widely widespread. Under the Cabinet Office rules that guide all governments, we cannot push this through letterboxes in every household as is often suggested because Parliament has not approved the relevant legislation, and we would be open to criti- cism and it would be beyond the rules. What we can do within the rules is to make this available on demand and at various points where people expect to find public information, like libraries and col- leges, and that is what we plan. Mr Lester 10. Foreign Secretary, you have talked about the discussions both in Birmingham and in Edinburgh as being linked. You have talked, excluding the Danish situation which we can explore in more detail, about statements which will clarify existing elements within the Treaty of Maastricht. Do you really think that there will be no new declarations or protocols agreed by the Council which would invalidate the ratification which has already taken place by France, Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg? Will they have to go back and have a further ratification on what might have emerged as.a result of the discussions at these two summits, or do you think that the long process of ratification—some countries which have already jumped the hoop and others which are still on the way—is going to keep anything like a timetable if we are re-negotiating protocols and bits of the Treaty over this long, extended period? (Mr Hurd) \ entirely understand that point. On the matters we have been talking about up until now, the questions of openness and subsidiarity and better information, that does not require any ratification. When we come on (if we are going to come on) to the Danish question that is where the question really arises. The Danes have put forward in their White paper (which the Committee has seen a summary of and so have I) a number of options. They intend to focus discussion in Denmark in the next few weeks on these options. They hope that out of that discussion will come (before Edinburgh) a Danish Government view. They hope that they can persuade all their partners to agree at Edinburgh a broad framework which will enable them to put the case to the people again in Denmark in another referendum. All that still lacks precision, and therefore lacks precision on the answer to your particular question. I would hope that as a result of their initiative, their White Paper, the discussion which they have now launched in Denmark, the discussion which will now follow among the Twelve, with the help of the presidency which will be forthcoming we will be able to identify at Edinburgh a framework of ways in ‘which the Danes can be helped to ratify;