Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40
- 59)
TUESDAY 28 MARCH 2000
MR KEITH
VAZ, MP AND
MR MARK
LYALL GRANT
40. The statement was not about enlargement,
the statement was quite clear: "accepting any bilateral official
contact ... no support in favour of Austrian candidates".
Are saying that this statement of 31 January was just words and
it has not affected the workings of the EU in any practical way?
(Mr Vaz) It was not designed to affect the workings
of the EU, it was designed to make a very clear statement to the
Government of Austria that if it went back on the arrangements
that it had made when it was formed, the principles upon which
it was formed, if it in any way echoed by its deeds the words
of Mr Haider then that would be viewed very seriously.
41. No, with the greatest respect that statement
is not conditional, that statement is excluding: "In the
event of a government being formed which involves the FPO..."
the following things will happen. What you are telling this Committee
is that this statement was just words and has had no effect in
practice on the workings of the European Union?
(Mr Vaz) No.
42. It was a statement merely for effect, that
is what you are telling the Committee?
(Mr Vaz) I can assure you, Ms Abbott, it was a very
important statement. It was the first time that the European Union—
I am sure you would agree with the principles behind the statement.
It was important that we made it clear as a European Union, the
14 countries working together under the Presidency, that we had
a position to take because of the inclusion in the Government
of Austria of this party.
43. I understand that. If the statement had
no effect in practice it was really just hot air.
(Mr Vaz) No, it was not hot air, Ms Abbott. It has
had the effect of making it clear to the Austrian Government what
our position is because they have included a party like the party
that Mr Haider led. It has not affected the workings of the European
Union because the Head of Government of Austria still attends
the meetings, clearly as he did at Lisbon. So the workings of
the IGC are not affected. The bilateral contact which you have
mentioned is an extremely important way of showing our dissatisfaction
with what has happened.
Mr Wilshire
44. What do the Austrian Government have to
do for the 14 to rescind that decision?
(Mr Vaz) That is not a matter for the IGC. I think
that is a matter for the Heads of Government to discuss and we
will discuss it.
Ms Abbott
45. What is the UK's position on that?
(Mr Vaz) I believe that it is important that we should
judge Austria by its deeds and by its actions and that is exactly
what we have been doing.
Dr Starkey
46. For the record, Mr Vaz, can you clarify
that actually it is not just Mr Haider alone, the platform of
the Freedom Party explicitly rejects a multi-cultural society
and has a cultural programme which is explicitly and exclusively
for the German Austrians?
(Mr Vaz) Indeed.
47. That is not consistent with European values.
(Mr Vaz) You are absolutely right. Why I am particularly
proud of the fact that the 14 countries has worked together on
this and issued a statement is that it is important that we should
have a benchmark on the values of the European Union. This is
what we said at the time and it remains the case because, as you
have said, Mr Haider may have resigned as the leader but the platform
remains. That is why the decisions that we took at the end of
January still apply.
Ms Abbott
48. I want to talk a little bit about the balance
between the Council, Commission and Parliament and ask you if
there is any change in the institutional balance between the Council,
the Commission and the Parliament envisaged at the next IGC?
(Mr Vaz) No. As you know, in the end the position
remains on accountability that the decisions are made finally
and formally at the European Council meetings. Ministers are accountable
to Parliament. Indeed, when he came back from Lisbon the Prime
Minister made a statement to Parliament on what he said and did
at Lisbon. When we have a Treaty at the end of this process it
will have to be ratified by the national parliaments. It is a
difficult balance always between competing power bases but we
are under absolutely no misapprehension that in the end the buck
stops with the politicians, it stops with the ministers.
49. Is the IGC likely to result in greater power
for the European Parliament? What is the Government's view of
the proposal from the Commission that some MPs may be elected
on an EU-wide list?
(Mr Vaz) As I have said with all Commission documents
and proposals, we will always be happy to look carefully at what
the Commission says. Our view in terms of the Parliament is that
a ceiling of 700 is an acceptable position. We do not envisage
this IGC resulting in any increase in the power of the European
Parliament. There is no move among Member States to ensure that
that happens.
Chairman
50. What about Europe-wide lists with no serious
accountability to constituents?
(Mr Vaz) Mr Anderson, that is almost a leading question.
51. With all respect, I am not in a court of
law.
(Mr Vaz) I can assure you that I am quite happy to
be led on this. I do not believe that that is a palatable idea.
Mr Mackinlay
52. Just a quickie and it is not semantics.
Mr Vaz, you said it would have to be ratified by the national
parliaments. Here, alas, we do not ratify treaties; we only pass
the legislation consequent on the Treaty and I wish to remind
you of the fact that we will be unique among all the other Parliaments
who do ratify treaties.
(Mr Vaz) I am most grateful, Mr Mackinlay, for that
clarification.
Mr Mackinlay: But it will change one day!
Dr Godman: When you are Prime Minister!
Mr Illsley
53. I have two unrelated questions, if I might.
One is to bring you back, Minister, to the track you started off
on with regards to the agenda. I have listened to you say that
we would like to keep a tight agenda and concentrate on the Amsterdam
leftovers and not fill up the agenda with other issues. I just
come back to the idea that if we have not been able to agree these
issues previously, what is the prospect of getting agreement this
time? I presume this is why the British Government does not want
to extend the agenda thus far. What problems do we see in getting
agreement on the three main issues of the Amsterdam leftovers?
If other countries are willing to bring forward other items to
the agenda, do they see themselves getting agreement on the three
issues far more easily than we envisage it if you understand my
point?
(Mr Vaz) I do understand your point, Mr Illsley. As
I have said, some Member States came to this process wanting to
shove in as much as they could. No one now is under any misapprehension.
We are now at the end of March. We want to produce a good report
for Feira in Portugal which will be in June. The French then take
over and practically the most important work is going to be done
then. No one is under any misapprehension that we have to get
on with it and we have to start by ensuring that those three crucial
areas, which are going to take an enormous amount of time, discussion
and debate, in my view, are dealt with first and I think Member
States understand that, which is why there is a kind of acceptance
that we have to have a focused agenda.
54. I am sure this Committee has taken evidence
previously from your colleagues and we have been told that the
actual options for the Amsterdam leftovers are on the table and
it is simply finding the political will to accept one in each
area and say this is it. Everyone knows the arguments; it is going
to be who has got the guts to take the decision. Do you agree
with that? Obviously not because you are talking about extending
beyond June and into the French Presidency.
(Mr Vaz) I do not think there is any absence of guts
on this issue. I think people do realise that we have got to sort
it out. There are a number of countries who want to join the European
Union and Poland, Hungary, the Baltics, all of these countries
are watching very carefully what we are doing. We do not want
to delay this process because it was the United Kingdom and our
Prime Minister who was at the forefront of the campaign for enlargement.
We have put forward proposals and models and they have been discussed.
Sir Stephen Wall, our representative, is doing a superb job and
I think we are very well-placed to have an influence over the
way the debate goes forward. I do not think anyone is being a
shrinking violet on this. People have their agendas and are ready
to have a good old discussion about it.
55. I believe the idea of a European prosecutor
is likely to be on the agenda of the IGC. Is that likely to extend
to corpus juries and a Europe-wide legal system or is it simply
going to be confined to a prosecutor and issues of fraud within
the European Union.
(Mr Vaz) As you know, the idea of a European prosecutor
was rejected at Tampere. It is extremely difficult to have a European-wide
prosecution system. As you know, in Barnsley the system is totally
different from Greenock. There are two jurisdictions in the United
Kingdom itself.
Dr Godman
56. He has just disassociated himself from me
on the basis of your comment about there being two legal systems
within mainland Britain. You are absolutely right.
(Mr Vaz) To that extent, it is so different. I do
not see in the discussions that I have had with my fellow European
Ministers a huge move to put the European prosecutor on the agenda.
I think we have dealt with it. We had a very impressive conference
at Tampere. We looked at justice and home affairs issues and I
do not see that running.
(Mr Lyall Grant) There has been some discussion of
this issue. It is fair to say that there was one Member State
in favour, one query and 13 against, so I think it is safe to
say that this will not be part of the agenda.
Sir John Stanley
57. Can I continue a little bit further the
European public prosecutor proposal. Minister, do you agree that
the proposal as formulated by the Commission would involve establishing
both European-wide criminal court procedures which would override
in this particular area national criminal court procedures and
also European-wide criminal legislation in this area which equally
would override national criminal legislation?
(Mr Vaz) No, I do not see it at all, Sir John. That
is why we do not support it.
58. Sorry, what I put to you was do you agree
that that is the Commission's proposal?
(Mr Vaz) I think that there is an attempt by not just
the Commission but by, as Mr Lyall Grant has said, another Member
State to try and get this back on the agenda. There is a view
in the minds of some people, maybe the Commission, that you can
have this kind of system where there is an overriding overarching
prosecutor and one system that applies to all countries. I am
saying it cannot work. We do not support it and it cannot work
for the reason we have so many different jurisdictions in our
country and therefore to extend it beyond our country to other
countries just cannot work. That does not mean that we will not
co-operate with other countries in order to make sure that our
criminal system works with theirs. If there is any information
available in order to track down criminals we will share this,
of course we will. The whole basis of what the Prime Minister
has said on drugs is co-operation between countries, but we do
not support the proposal. I am not quite sure whether it crystallises
exactly as you have discussed today as being the Commission's
proposal. If it did, I would not support it.
59. Minister, I am sure you have read the Commission's
proposal and I refer you to page 16 of it. Can I just ask you
again. There are two quite separate legs to this proposal which
this Committee has pursued informally with Commissioner Barnier.
The first is a proposal to establish European-wide criminal court
procedures which would override national criminal court procedures.
The second leg of the proposal would be to establish European-wide
criminal legislation which would override national criminal legislation.
What I am asking you is to confirm that that is the case, as I
think is very clearly set out on page 16 of the Commission's document.
Can you confirm that there are those two legs.
(Mr Vaz) Sir John, if it is clearly set out you do
not need me to confirm it.
| 
