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.

    24/96 (page 8)
    12 October 1992] [ Continued [Mr Gapes Contd] might call the Home Office subjects. It is a good thing from the point of view of Britain that there should be a treaty which says that it is going to be organised on the basis of co-operation because it rules out what otherwise is the kind of argument which we have experienced in the past because of 235 Sir John Stanley 25. Foreign Secretary, I can see the logic of delaying the proceedings on the committee stage of the Maastricht Bill until such time as the Danish decision on a second referendum is known, but I do not understand the Government’s reasoning as to why the Government wishes apparently to delay the start of the remaining proceedings on the Maastricht Bill, but to delay them to a point which is certainly going to be before the decision on the second Danish referendum is known. Could you explain why is the Government delaying proceed- ings on the Bill and what does it hope to achieve during the period of delay? (Mr Hurd) 1 do not think we are, Sir John. Proceedings as they are now envisaged begin with the paving debate and we will have that, as the Prime Minister said last week or ten days ago, we will have that soon after we come back and we are thinking about what dates it will be now, but cer- tainly that will be soon. Then we will have a long committee stage on the floor of the House. It is bound to be long, not by the Government’s deci- sion or because the Bill is long, but because critics of the Bill will want a proper play for their amend- ments, so that will take a long time. What we have not decided is when that long time will be and that really has not been decided. There has been no decision to delay it, but it has to fit in with the Government’s programme and the wishes of the House. Mr Lester 26. Assuming the negotiations, the long, drawn- out negotiations to actually achieve the Treaty must have taken into account many of the Danish Government’s fears at the time so that the new White Book is really subsequent to long, drawn- out negotiations to try and deal with those fears, is there not a danger if we go too far in that direction that we are going to see the tail wagging the European dog rather than the other way round? (Mr Hurd) 1 am not sure your premise is quite right. The Danish Government had the view that Danish opinion had moved on European matters in a way which the referendum showed it had not. What is clear anyway is that since June 2nd the Danish Government have acted, I think, with skill in assembling opinion, listening to what was said by the “yes” people and the “no” people in Denmark, and producing the gptions in this way, and having the kind of discussions which they have had. Since their referendum they have gradually worked out a new position and, as I have said, we mean to help them with it. Chairman: It is not just the Danish opinion that, as it were, is clouding the purity of Maastricht but there is the whole question of the changing mone- tary situation, and that will be dealt with techni- cally and in detail by another Committee this afternoon, but I think we would like to understand your views about how monetary union, which is the central feature of the existing Maastricht text, is going to influence discussions at Birmingham and, indeed, afterwards. Mr Sumberg 27. Foreign Secretary, the Treaty for European Union had as one of its principal aims economic » and monetary union, which the Chairman has mentioned, and when it was signed 11 out of the 12 members were all members of the ERM, since when we are no longer a member and neither is Italy. If you look at the convergence criteria it does link in, of course, to the exchange rate mech- anism. Would you not therefore agree that a state which had suspended its membership of the ERM and allowed its currency to flow, which we now have, would not satisfy those convergence criteria in the run-up to the third stage? (Mr Hurd) There is not, legally speaking, a link between membership of the ERM and ratification of the Treaty. If there were, of course, Greece would not be speeding ahead with ratification in the way she does, because she is not a member of the ERM. As regards EMU, there are I think two relevant facts: one is the convergence conditions, which you have mentioned, which are very tight; and, secondly, there is the British opt-out, which means that we are not committed to stage three of the single currency unless and until the British Parliament so decides. Those two things, I think, mean that there is not, and there is not regarded by anybody as being a legal link between ratifica- tion of the Treaty and entry into economic and monetary union. Could I just add this: partly for that reason but partly for more general reasons which applied even in 1990, I have never thought that whether we joined the ERM or whether we suspend membership in 1992 or whether we ever re-join a similar set-up is something on which the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office should lead. It is not essentially a function of foreign pol- icy, although it obviously makes waves across into foreign policy. It must be a central question of eco- nomic policy and it must be something which is dealt with on economic grounds, and that is how it is handled inside the British Government. That is why the Chancellor’s declarations, for example, to your sister Committee today are the key. I. do not really want to duplicate, let alone introduce any nuance inadvertently. 28. I accept that, of course, but let me just press you on the order of things, the chicken and the egg situation. Would Britain have the opt-out clause, as you say? Would you agree with me that there can be no question of debating that opt-out clause by Parliament, from seeking the approval of