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.

    28/96 (page 12)
    [Sir John Stanley Contd] question of links between national parliaments on these matters, and links between national parlia- ments and the European Parliament. There was the Assizes in Rome of which I do not think, Chairman, you came away with a particularly rosy view; maybe that was because it was wrongly run. The principle of talk and discussion between national parliaments and the European Parliament must be a right one. These are some of the ideas which, under this very important heading we have, and we are encouraging other people in other countries to come forward with similar ideas, and particularly national parliamentarians. Mr Sumberg 44. Foreign Secretary, I just want to press you briefly on this minimum interference. It seems to me that it is not so much a question of: is it writ- ten in plain English, or whatever, but its legal enforceability. Will you be Satisfied after Birmingham or after Edinburgh with anything less than a declaration that is capable of being legally enforced and legally challenged in the European Court so far as the doctrine is concerned? (Mr Hurd) You are a lawyer, but I am not sure that I entirely agree with you. I think what is needed, as I think you said, Mr Chairman, is the political will: so before it gets to the lawyers, the proposals which fail subsidiarity are actually knocked on the head before they are adopted; so you do not have to go into the business of chal- lenging them after. This is not going to be very easy to do retrospectively, although we shall try; but it should be easier to do if the Commission, particularly the Council, the political decision-tak- ing body has procedures and tests in place which enable it to take these decisions. Mr Rowlands 45. As part of all determinations, for example? (Mr Hurd) The procedures of the Council are something that are being discussed at the moment. It is a crucial point for exactly the reasons you have given. Mr Sumberg 46. I accept that all your views on the political process are exactly mine, but in the ultimate will that legal sanction exist? Do you want to see that legal sanction or will you be satisfied with any- thing less? (Mr Hurd) I think, as I have said in answer to an earlier question, we believe and we are advised that Article 3(b) as it stands now, not always as it is reported because we improved it in the final stages by getting the last paragraph taken away from the previous paragraph, applies to all the work of the Community and not just to the areas of shared competence. I believe that it is a good legal underpinning of the principle. Mr Gapes 47. Could I take you back to the question of the role of parliaments. You said that the decisive body of the Community was the Council and not the Commission. Is not one of the problems that Ministers come back to this Parliament and they report on the deals, the compromises and the fudges that they have worked out and then it is too late for us to actually have a decisive influence? At the same time the European Parliament does not have sufficient power to do it at that level either, so we have what we call a democratic deficit. It is very nice for ministers meeting in secret to do these things because there is no adequate accountability - at either end? (Mr Hurd) J have always found in my present to explain and account more precisely for European decisions, the machinery was brisker and more effective than for domestic ones. The legisla- ture is never going to feel, particularly an energetic legislature, that it has ministers absolutely there every hour of the day, because it will not. Parliaments have to choose what they are going to concentrate on. I feel that the way in which this Parliament controls and deals with European deci- sion-making, to put it mildly, is at least as brisk and thorough as that which it does with domestic. Chairman: A final question, Foreign Secretary, before we move on on the presidency. Our presi- dency is turning out to be a little more interesting than perhaps we had originally planned. Mr Rowlands 48. Foreign Secretary, you could have planned this presidency on the assumption that you would be out of the ERM etc. etc. (Mr Hurd) You are correct. 49. Tell us, considering it is the Danes’ next turn in January, is it the hope and expectation of the presidency, the Government’s presidency that in fact with the combination of Birmingham and Edinburgh you will have basically signed and arranged whatever additional declarations, what- ever additional protocols are going to be added to the Maastricht Treaty to make it acceptable not only to the Danish people but to Europe and to Britain as well in the British Parliament? Is that a likely achievement of the combination of Birmingham and Edinburgh or are these matters going to run into the Danish presidency? (Mr Hurd) It is an objective, Mr Rowlands, and I think it is a reasonable objective and we will do our best to reach it. The Danes will take over the presidency, there is no earthly reason why they should not, and it is very important that they should, but since you are asking about the presi- dency, could I just say that the course of events has not upset the need for the agenda we set out in July. The GATT negotiations are, to be honest, Mr Chairman, much more important than any- thing we have been discussing this morning. They