Leading Article: Change, or miss the train

IT HAS been clear for a long time that the European Community will have to restructure its institutions to cope with enlargement. Existing arrangements could just about survive 16 members but beyond that they would be overwhelmed.

The British government, exhausted and unnerved by its battles over the Maastricht treaty, has been reluctant to start the debate too soon. It wants institutional reform to be confined to low-level expert debate so that it does not disrupt the agenda at higher levels. Douglas Hurd, the Foreign Secretary, has talked of the need for a period of 'institutional tranquillity', arguing that the Community should now concentrate on more pressing problems, such as Gatt, the Balkans and implementation of Maastricht.

This is an unrealistic position, especially in view of the need to ensure that institutional reform is fully understood and accepted by public opinion before decisions are taken. If there is one thing the Maastricht experience has shown, it is the folly of springing the handiwork of 'experts' on an unprepared public.

This is why we should welcome proposals emanating from Christian Democratic parliamentarians in Bonn. In a paper discussed by the leaders of the party's parliamentary group, their spokesman on foreign affairs, Karl Lamers, argues that institutional reform must be tackled parallel with negotiations for the entry of the three Scandinavian countries and Austria, rather than waiting until the East Europeans are at the door. He wants the new applicants brought into the discussion as observers.

Among his specific suggestions are that the European Commission be limited to 10 members chosen by its president, subject to approval by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers; that the size of the parliament be limited but its powers extended; and that the president of the council be elected and hold office for a year.

More controversially, he wants qualified majority voting to be replaced by a system requiring legislation in specified areas to be supported by four-fifths of member states, which together must represent four-fifths of the population of the Community. This would make it impossible to override two large countries. These are sensible proposals, not dissimilar to those being put forth by the European Constitutional Group and the European Policy Forum in London. They recognise the two essentials of reform, which are to streamline the Commission and strengthen democratic controls.

The key question is whether democratic control should be exercised primarily through the European Parliament or through national parliaments acting either as more effective checks on ministers at home or through a European body. Mr Lamers envisages a combination of both systems and tentatively endorses the idea of an upper house, or senate, of the European Parliament in which national parliaments would be represented. This looks more sensible and more educative for parliamentarians than trying to improve on the present unsatisfactory oversight of European matters in domestic parliaments.

What is vital at this stage is that the debate should be encouraged and made as open as possible. It need not interfere with other items on the agenda. Indeed, since several of these, including Maastricht and enlargement, involve the long- term future of the Community, they make little sense without parallel discussion of institutional reform. The British government should involve itself without delay or it will find once again that it has missed the train.