Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1 - 19)

TUESDAY 28 MARCH 2000

MR KEITH VAZ, MP AND MR MARK LYALL GRANT

Chairman

  1. Mr Vaz, may I welcome you on your first appearance before the Committee. Welcome also Mr Lyall Grant who is an old stager, a veteran who has been before the Committee on a number of occasions. We look forward to a number of productive sessions over the years ahead, Mr Vaz. Can I begin in this way: you as Minister for Europe will clearly be the person responsible over the period both of the Portuguese Presidency and of the French Presidency for the preparations for the ultimate Intergovernmental Conference. Can you give us some idea of, one, what your personal role is, how much time this takes, what meetings you would normally attend, and also where we are now in terms of the timetable.

  (Mr Vaz) Can I say I am delighted to be here and to have with me Mr Lyall Grant, the Head of the European Union Department (Internal) who, as you know, is a veteran of these Committees. He has lasted longer than most Euro Ministers. I am pleased to be here to talk about the IGC. Of course, as Minister for Europe I will have responsibility for what is happening at the IGC and the Foreign Secretary will take, as he has always done, a very close interest in these matters. In the end it will be the Foreign Secretary who will lead for us on all the important negotiations and discussions. We agreed at a very early stage that as far as the preparatory group is concerned—we have had three meetings so far with another taking place today as we speak—that our representative would be Sir Stephen Wall, our permanent representative at UKREP, the reason being that there are a number of meetings that are taking place and the preparatory group, as one would imagine from its name, prepares the ground and prepares the scope. As far as where we are at the moment—

  2. Where personally would you come in in terms of the volume of meetings and the likely timetable over the next months?
  (Mr Vaz) The Foreign Secretary and I will attend the GAC meetings in Brussels on a monthly basis. It depends very much on what the French Presidency proposes to do as far as Europe Ministers are concerned. Informal discussions are going on as to the next stage beyond the preparatory group meetings but there will be a keen political input from both myself and the Foreign Secretary.

  3. Where are we now?
  (Mr Vaz) We have had three meetings of the group. The fourth one, as I have said, is taking place today. There was a brief reference to the IGC in the conclusions at Lisbon. There will be a much more substantial report on the scope and much more substantial update at Feiro in Portugal. I am informed on a weekly basis by Sir Stephen Wall as to what progress has been made. We were very keen to ensure as a government that the focus, the agenda of the IGC should be as tight and focused as possible because we are very keen to ensure this finishes by the end of the year.

  4. Are we on track?
  (Mr Vaz) We are on track. We have made clear that if a whole shopping list is added to the Amsterdam leftovers we will not complete the work by the necessary time.

  5. Is it your fear that some countries may wish to increase this shopping list so as to overload the conference and there may be delays?
  (Mr Vaz) Not so much a fear. Clearly countries are very ambitious in terms of what they would like to see discussed, but we are confident that the agenda for the IGC and scope of the IGC will remain focused on the three leftovers and we will proceed on that basis. I think everyone is aware if we are not completed by the end of this year then the whole enlargement process will be held up and the purpose of the IGC is to prepare us for enlargement.

  Chairman: That is precisely the point Dr Godman wishes to raise on enlargement.

Dr Godman

  6. Thank you, Chairman. Minister, I put it to you in the House the other day, as I have done to Robin Cook himself, that the process of enlargement is bedeviled by problems. Without the radical and comprehensive reform of the CAP we cannot have enlargement otherwise we will finish up with a system of two classes of membership. I also said there would be a problem with the free movement of labour in the period when most Member States, if not all, are tightening up on their immigration laws. I seem to think you gave me a dusty answer on that one. Also in relation to enlargement, can I ask just how many Directives and Regulations there are in force at this moment. I know you will not be able to answer that question right now but if your officials could write to the Clerk that would be useful because I suspect they run to several thousands of documents. Will all of these apply to these new Member States or will they be given a period of some years before all of the Directives and Regulations will apply to them?
  (Mr Vaz) Dr Godman, I am sorry if you thought I gave you a dusty answer. I hope I would never do that to someone as distinguished as yourself.

  7. It was an extremely courteous one.
  (Mr Vaz) The issue of enlargement is important so far as the IGC is concerned of course because the IGC would not take place unless we were having enlargement, but they are two processes. The negotiations with the applicant countries are going on, in my view, extremely well. On a regular basis I see either European Ministers from the applicant countries or the chief negotiators on their behalf and they are all confident that the negotiations and timetables they have set themselves are going to be achieved. You mentioned in the House and indeed today the issue of agriculture. Clearly that is going to be an important matter when that chapter of the acquis communautaire is opened. I am under no illusions and I am sure you are not that this is not going to be a tough chapter, but I do not see that process as in any way preventing us in the EU from doing the work which we need to do to prepare the institutions for enlargement. That process is continuing under Commissioner Verheugen. He has now been allocated additional staff to deal with the new six that have been given the go ahead since Helsinki. So I am confident that process will continue, but you are right, these are going to be very tough negotiations and discussions. As with any organisation you have to be quite clear what your expectations and ambitions are and the discussions will be quite detailed. On the question of the number of regulations, I will certainly write to you with the information you require.

  8. But these rules of membership, and there are many, many hundreds of Directives and Regulations, are there not, ranging from occupational safety of the crews of fishing vessels to farming, to working hours, are they going to be slapped across the doorstep of these new Member States, if they are successful in applying, or will they be allowed time to absorb these rules of membership?
  (Mr Vaz) When you join the European Union you have to join the Union as a full Member State and, therefore, you have to be able to accept whatever the rules are, as one would for any organisation. The issue of transition is, of course, important. We are not keen on long transition periods, however no accession has taken place so far as I can remember without some form of transition for some issue or the other. Certainly we had it when we joined in some areas. We are keen to make sure that we do not have a situation where lots of exemptions and transitions are granted simply because we do not believe in a two-tier Europe, we believe if you join then you should join with all the rules and regulations that apply to other Member States applying to you. I am quite certain that countries will be negotiating on these points.

  9. Finally, you see no problems with the free movement of labour in these days?
  (Mr Vaz) I do not. I think that we have a robust policy and it is a policy that is working.

Chairman

  10. Minister, you mentioned the Agricultural Dossier. It is so complex in respect of Poland that some applicant countries fear that they will be ready at a point when Poland will not be ready and they may be held back as a result. How do you respond to that?
  (Mr Vaz) Chairman, you are absolutely right, there are fears about individual chapters of the acquis and other countries have their fears. This is not a process which in any way is exclusive. If a country is ready and has met the terms and criteria they will be allowed to join.

  11. On their own or in a cluster?
  (Mr Vaz) I think we will have to look at the discussions, the negotiations, as they go on. No single country will have a veto over other countries joining, really it is very much up to the speed at which they negotiate. I am confident, having spoken to Commissioner Verheugen on a number of occasions, that he is aware of the problems and is keen to make sure that any of the applicants that have any difficulties come forward and discuss them as soon as possible.

Sir David Madel

  12. The Government's White Paper on the IGC in relation to qualified majority voting ruled out six areas where we would not accept QMV: treaty change, taxation, border controls, social security, defence and own resources. The Commission keeps going back to QMV on taxation. Are you having any progress in saying to the Commission "please stop pursuing that"? What is the state of play?
  (Mr Vaz) I do not think it is our job to tell them to stop doing something. You are quite right, the Commission, Sir David, has come up with a number of proposals on this and our position remains absolutely clear, it is set in stone, it is as is described in the paper issued on 15 February, those areas are not up for discussion. What we have said generally on QMV is that we will look at QMV on a case by case basis but not in those areas that I have defined. We are not afraid of QMV in other areas, we are ready to look at the proposals. We think that we would not have had the Single Market without QMV and certainly previous Governments have allowed QMV as a result of the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty. I think we need to be clear that the Commission is entitled to put forward proposals and we are equally entitled to reject them.

  13. It will be better if we try to proceed on a harmonious route. To that extent the Commission produced its own document adapting the institutions to make sense of enlargement and suggested various things which could be QMV. One has the measures to combat discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, etc, the article taking up the pursuit of activities of self-employed persons. On that list for adapting the institutions does the Government have any objection to QMV extended, there which of course would please the Commission because it was their idea in the first place?
  (Mr Vaz) I think we want to study all the proposals that have been put forward. We have made it clear where our bottom line is. We are happy to look at any proposals that have been put forward and hear the arguments for them. Clearly we cannot control, nor do we seek to control, what the Commission says. There will be lots of discussions. That is the whole purpose of having this very lengthy process, it is going to last a year and it is going to result in a lot of discussions and negotiations. We are happy that they should put their views forward. We will be very tough in defending our national interest in dealing with all these issues.

  14. The big six, if I can call them, no change on that, but as far as the ones I have mentioned, there were only two but there are others, basically the Commission must wait patiently until the Government has made up its mind?
  (Mr Vaz) I think so. We have made certain points publicly about the way in which the European Court of Justice operates, for example the rules of procedure which everyone believes should be subject to good and long and detailed discussion, and the appointments to the court. I think that we will need to look at each particular case very carefully and make a decision on that basis. It is early days.

Mr Rowlands

  15. I would like to pursue the point made by Sir David. The new term that has recently crept in is "QMV in the fields of tax and social security relating to the proper functioning of the internal market". That is the phrase that we see in the Presidency documents and indeed in the Commission's supplementary document. Are there any tax or social security measures which you would see, or the Government would see, are in fact part and parcel of the proper functioning of the internal market and, therefore, could be subject to QMV?
  (Mr Vaz) No. We have made our position quite clear on these issues, it is clearly set out in the White Paper on 15 February and we are not changing our position on that.

  16. In that case, Minister, I was a bit puzzled by the Prime Minister. If I can take you back to yesterday's statement and his answer. He was pressed by the Leader of the Opposition who asked why did he commit himself to the so-called tax package, tax harmonisation in another name, to which the Prime Minister responded in column 26, "On the tax package we are committed to finding agreement, and I believe that we can do so on our terms. We are not against everything in the tax package. Indeed, we are strongly in favour of some parts of it. We want tax laws that are used as a hidden state subsidy to be removed, and that is a major part of the tax package." That implies there are taxes, or part of the tax package, which we are willing to see become part of the QMV arrangements.
  (Mr Vaz) No, that is not what the Prime Minister said.

  17. My interpretation.
  (Mr Vaz) Your interpretation is not what the Prime Minister said.

  18. Tell me what the tax package is then.
  (Mr Vaz) The tax package is something, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, which is a matter that is being discussed and we will respond as positively as we can to the proposals that have been put forward. The Chancellor has made that position absolutely clear. When we are in a position to put those views forward we will. The context is clear and the context is we believe there are certain areas that are not up for grabs and not to be subject to QMV.

  19. I understand that.
  (Mr Vaz) Where there are proposals that have been put forward and we have been asked to respond to them we will do so, and the Chancellor will do so.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 18 July 2000