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

96 Pages·1992·11.3 MB·English

by  Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Foreign Affairs Committee

U/C
nmOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 1992-93
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE
First Report
EUROPE AFTER MAASTRICHT: INTERIM REPORT
Report, together with the
Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence
and Appendices
Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed
4 November 1992
LONDON: HMSO
£15.25 net
NA 3
22501843798
a NPS: 3
j “a is
HOUSE OF COMMONS SESSION 1992-93
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
COMMITTEE
First Report
EUROPE AFTER MAASTRICHT: INTERIM REPORT
Report, together with the
Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence
and Appendices
Ordered by The House of Commons fo be printed
4 November 1992
INFORMATION CENTRE
15 DEC 1992
2400
Wellcome Centre for Medical Science
cree nee IT
LONDON: HMSO
£15.25 net
205
il FIRST REPORT FROM
The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed under SO No 130 to examine the expenditure
administration and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and of associated public
bodies.
The Committee consists of 11 members. It has a quorum of three. Unless the House
otherwise orders, all Members nominated to the Committee continue to be members of it for
the remainder of the Parliament.
The Committee has power:
(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the
House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time;
(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available
or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee’s order of reference;
(c) to communicate to any other such committee its evidence and any other documents
relating to matters of common interest; and
(d) to meet concurrently with any such other committee for the purpose of deliberating,
taking evidence, or considering draft reports.
The Committee has power to appoint one sub-committee and to report from time to time
the minutes of evidence taken before it. The sub-committee has power to send for persons,
papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from
place to place. It has a quorum of three.
The membership of the Committee since its appointment on 13 July 1992 is as follows:
Rt Hon David Howell, Guildford (Chairman)
Mr Dennis Canavan, Falkirk West Mr Ted Rowlands, Merthyr Tydfil
Mr Mike Gapes, I/ford South and Rhymney
Mr David Harris, St Ives Rt Hon Peter Shore, Bethnal Green
Rt Hon Michael Jopling, Westmorland and Stepney
and Lonsdale Rt Hon Sir John Stanley, Tonbridge
Mr Jim Lester, Broxtowe and Malling
Mr David Sumberg, Bury South
Mr Robert Wareing, Liverpool West Derby
The cost of printing and publishing this Report is estimated by HMSO at £10,944.
THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE iil
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
REPORT
ANNEX Vili
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE RELATING TO THE REPORT ix
LIST OF WITNESSES
LIST OF APPENDICES TO THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE XI
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
APPENDICES TO THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 41
dies Alte BTV
| AT “o Seanad’ tha
an sae a 4 ere NS Pees gid ot seal
von Sieg, wiki ta a <b le hating Mn Ae la sone remtoyk eee
é they 7 me ° ait a te ee ee . TEE eat wie? aes if bet
‘ rie j= 2 i 4 oe oe : Tne 8 3 pis 7 a ’
5 ‘Mee ae * oun? pane 4 . - ae lean hate f " i
Lic TAO INT OF OAIT ATTA SATTIMMOD BHT AG
* . » bi iil ; 4 r X 2 P es,
taith: gor eke te bf chen wrhca ating
é its . a ot A ‘
ee ee ee wis Bs each
xe ‘ is AIO?rs 1 10 Bat VE RT OT 273a
= ‘sal is ear ed sige Sabie ASAT Ga ee "
‘2 . ' rag ae) iz igt ai AOR ¥
te eis usanae aan ane
y , : ete pe 7 7 =
‘he sue At “tee th gain ae hanes “tage ee hs
PY Bd x f Vite .
3 ate 2D ut reer ‘eS ced se I regu 7
rca ie ‘Plig cobra fas: Ley te
wens epg ye
‘ ; ua ra, Hee Seek tel
j oar + of iv Pa :
re . Me ie ihe Mae Fad lathe ete
; | i Ph %y c tit pore ee! : ‘Bint ee
oj ine - Pah RY tho Peter Bene, #22
se a a Se? a i ee e\e s . ee iS oe i: ane y<a p <a i 4 : F
We, Beas it 2 ze Sax snleys
ianet s he. bo a4, f Ty 5 neo ee e~~.e ohh |
Mir EAE, Syniberg: Re
GE
ist Miaiet Wasitize oe
i\
\
F
"
:
ab
; a;y
h
F a ; ; raah e ;a
a - ‘
| - fe Ae PT. OH DuGeses
b : a) .e s] ets * y ey 3» ) “| :a , “a>y
ne * " 7 : ? ond a 4 :w ey a
FIRST REPORT
EUROPE AFTER MAASTRICHT: INTERIM REPORT
The Foreign Affairs Committee has agreed to the following Report:
Work of the Committee
1. When the Committee was re-established in July 1992, we decided to continue the inquiry
begun by the Committee last Session into Europe after Maastricht, on which the Committee
made a brief preliminary Report in March 1992. With that Report the Committee also pub-
lished .the evidence it had thus far received on the Maastricht Treaty (including a long memo-
randum from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) and a note of its discussions in Bonn,
Paris and Brussels, which it drew to the attention of the House in the context of the forthcom-
ing debates on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill.!
2. Our inquiries this session will look forward, beyond the issues associated with ratification
of the Treaty, and examine the future shape of the European Community. We shall be report-
ing more fully to the House later in the Session. We have decided, however, to report to the
House immediately eight memoranda we have so far received in this inquiry, most of which
examine the issue of subsidiarity, which has become one important aspect of the debate in all
European countries as they decide whether to ratify the Maastricht Treaty.* We should empha-
sise that, although this interim report deals primarily with evidence on subsidiarity, other cen-
tral issues arise from the Treaty which will deserve our urgent attention. Subsidiarity as such is
not the only matter which will determine the future character of the Community. For example,
the political and institutional processes towards monetary union will have a considerable
impact upon the nature of the Community.
3. We have so far taken oral evidence in this inquiry from the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office and from some of the legal experts who have submitted memoranda to us.? That evi-
dence, which is published with this Report, expands and clarifies some of the memoranda we
have received. We also, during the summer adjournment, took evidence from the Foreign
Secretary, before the Birmingham Summit of EC leaders, called by the Prime Minister follow-
ing the turmoil in the money markets which led to the UK withdrawing from the European
Exchange Rate Mechanism on 16 September 1992.4
The Birmingham Summit
4. The Foreign Secretary described three elements in the Birmingham Summit’s approach to
the problems demonstrated by the Danish people’s rejection of the Maastricht Treaty on 2
June 1992 and the slender majority in favour of the Treaty in the French referendum on 20
September 1992. These were:
— greater openness in the way the Community conducts its business, including meetings
of the European Council;
— subsidiarity, including possible changes to the procedures of the European Commission
and the Council of Ministers as well as a review of past Community legislation; and
— making a better job of explaining the Community to its citizens.>
All these points were covered in the declaration by heads of government issued at the end of
the summit.® The declaration also reaffirmed Governments’ commitment to the Maastricht
Treaty, stressed the réle of the European Parliament in the democratic life of the Community
and reaffirmed that national parliaments should be more closely involved in the Community’s
activities.
Subsidiarity
5. The evidence we have received from academics and lawyers with experience in the
European Community demonstrates some of the difficulties involved in making the principle of
subsidiarity work in practice. It also draws attention to the links between subsidiarity and some
' Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Europe after Maastricht, HC (1991-92) 223-I & II.
2 See list of Appendices.
3 Ev 29 October 1992.
4 Ev 12 October 1992, HC (1992-93) 205-i.
5 Ev 12 October 1992, Q 3.
6 The Birmingham Declaration, 16 October 1992.
vi FIRST REPORT FROM
of the other matters covered in the Birmingham declaration. Heads of Government envisaged
that at the Edinburgh meeting of the European Council, towards the end of the UK Presidency
of the Community, ways would be found of applying the principle of subsidiarity in practice.
Our evidence suggests that this will be difficult to achieve. We draw the House’s attention in
particular to the following points that were put to us:
— Subsidiarity is best understood as a political or constitutional convention, rather than
as a legal mechanism;
— Evidence and opinion as to the extent to which Article 3b of the Treaty about sub-
sidiarity extends to policies within the exclusive competence of the Community are con-
flicting and open to further debate.”
— Challenges to Community actions before the European Court of Justice on the basis of
Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty about subsidiarity are unlikely to succeed?;
— Amendments to the practice and procedures of the Commission and the Council will
be necessary if subsidiarity is to be effective in ensuring the minimum interference by
the Community in the affairs of member states*;
— Most decisions about new Community actions stem from the Council of Ministers or
require its approval. Adherence by the Council to the principle of subsidiarity is cru-
cial>;
— Adapting the procedures and practices of Community institutions (as planned at
Birmingham) to apply the principle of subsidiarity in practice should be understood to
represent only a first stage in its application. Our witnesses suggested that the
Community must go much further than this if subsidiarity is genuinely to become the
benchmark by which the balance of power in the Community is regulated.®
— Without some new institutional mechanism for enforcing subsidiarity, it may not be
effective. Ideas put to us included: Council procedures to test all proposals for new leg-
islation against the provisions of Article 3b of the Treaty;’ or requiring new initiatives
to be approved by national parliaments® or to be vetted by an independent subsidiarity
committee.”
— Decisions taken at the Edinburgh summit about openness, subsidiarity and increasing
public awareness of the Community will need to be followed by more radical reconsid-
eration of the balance of the powers in the European Community before the next
Intergovernmental conference in 1996!°.
Denmark
6. We also asked our witnesses about the probability of meeting Denmark’s requests for
changes to or clarifications of the agreements reached at Maastricht without formal amend-
ment to the Maastricht Treaty (which had been ruled out by Member States at the
Birmingham summit) and whether meeting Denmark’s wishes would require a further ratifica-
tion procedure in Member States or amendment to the European Communities (Amendment)
Bill in the United Kingdom. Denmark’s final proposals, aimed at winning support for the
Treaty in a further referendum in 1993, were not available when we took evidence, but their
probable terms were known.!!
7. Witnesses confirmed to us that the Treaty will fall unless it is ratified by all member
states.'* A central difficulty in achieving Danish ratification would appear to be Denmark’s
insistence on changes which will be legally binding.'? How this can be reconciled with the deci-
' See eg Appendix 6, para 23.
* Ev 29 October 1992, Qs 100-104, 148-50; Appendices 2, 4, 6 and 8.
3 See eg Appendix 6, para 22, Appendices 2 and 4; and Ev 29 October 1992, Qs 116-7, 146, 147.
4See eg Appendix 6, para 23, Ev 29 October 1992, Qs 107-111.
>See eg Appendix 7, para 11.
© See Ev 29 October 1992, Q 148.
7 See eg Appendix 1.
8 See eg Appendix 1; Ev 29 October 1992, Qs 150, 151.
° See eg Appendix 2.
10 See eg Appendix 7.
'l See Ev 29 October 1992, Q 66.
12 Ey 29 October 1992, Q 140.
'S “Denmark in Europe” 30 October 1992, p.4; Ev 29 October 1992, Q 83.
THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Vil
sion of the Twelve in the Birmingham Declaration that the Maastricht Treaty should not be
amended is unclear.
8. Our evidence shows that a firm conclusion about whether Denmark’s proposals can be
implemented without amendment to the Treaty is unlikely to be possible until at least the
Edinburgh European Council meeting on 11 December.! Foreign Office officials explained that
the options under consideration included a new Declaration attached to the Treaty, a new
Protocol, or some other sort of free-standing agreement between Member States which might
not modify the Treaty itself.2 The precise effects of any of these on the ratification process in
the United Kingdom or on the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill are
not known.* However, there are obvious difficulties posed by the fact that the Danish propos-
als, with possible amendments, have to be acceptable to the Danish Government, the Danish
Parliament, the Danish people and, of course, the other eleven members of the EC. There are
consequent problems of synchronisation, especially as the Danish referendum will probably not
be held until Spring of 1993 at the earliest.
Information about the Treaty
9. In Denmark and in France, before their referenda, the Governments made available to
the general public the full text of the Maastricht Treaty. In the UK the Treaty was (eventually)
published by the Government in May 1992 and is on sale to the public at a price of £13.30.4
The Government is shortly to issue a booklet about the Treaty aimed at the general public. In
response to a request from the Committee, the Government has also agreed to make available
to the House, before the Committee stage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, a
further document, in straightforward English, explaining the Government’s interpretation of
the Treaty [see Annex]. We welcome this and believe it is overdue. We hope that this docu-
ment, and the evidence we have published, will assist the House in understanding the terms of
the Treaty.
' See Ev 29 October 1992, Qs 84-91.
2 See Ev 29 October 1992, Qs 69, 80, 88.
3 See Ev 29 October 1992, Q 90.
4Cm 1934; the EC edition of the text is also on sale in the UK at a price of £6.50. The full text of the Treaty has also been
published in the national press.
Vill FIRST REPORT FROM
Annex
Letter, dated 12 October 1992, from the Clerk of the Committee, to the Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
Maastricht Treaty
On behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee, may I thank you and your officials for giving
evidence on 12 October.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Committee went briefly back into private session to
discuss your evidence about the Maastricht Treaty. The Committee have directed me to write
to you today about your replies to questions from Sir John Stanley and other Members of the
Committee about the information booklet the Government plans to issue interpreting the
Treaty.
I am directed to convey to you the Committee’s request that, in addition to any information
booklet prepared for the general public, the Government should make available to Members of
both Houses of Parliament, as soon as possible and in any event before the European
Communities (Amendment) Bill is brought back to the House, a statement setting out the
Government’s interpretation, in straightforward English, of the provisions of the Treaty, to
amplify the text published in Cm 1934.
Letter, dated 19 October 1992, from the Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Foreign
and Commonwealth Affairs, to the Clerk of the Committee
Maastricht Treaty
The Foreign Secretary has asked me to thank you for your letter of 12 October.
As he mentioned when he gave evidence on 12 October, the Government have already made
available to the Committee (last January) a Memorandum on the Maastricht Treaty.
Nevertheless, he is glad to comply with the Committee’s request for a further document, in
straightforward English, explaining the government’s interpretation of the provisions of the
Treaty. We shall ask the Treasury to contribute on the subjects where they lead.
We shall aim to have this with the House as soon as possible, but certainly before
Committee Stage is reached.