Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60
- 79)
TUESDAY 28 MARCH 2000
MR KEITH
VAZ, MP AND
MR MARK
LYALL GRANT
60. I do need you to confirm it because you
have just described yourself as the Minister for Europe and, therefore,
we are looking to you, not just a Member of the Select Committee,
to give your own view as to what the Commission is proposing.
I ask you, do you agree that is what the Commission is proposing?
(Mr Vaz) Sir John, if that is your interpretation
of what the Commission is proposing then we disagree with it.
I think really this is a question that you need to put to the
Commission, not me.
61. Are you disagreeing with my interpretation
or are you disagreeing with the proposal?
(Mr Vaz) Both.
Sir John Stanley: If you disagree with my interpretation
could I ask you then to put in front of you page 16 of the Commission's
proposal.
Mr Illsley
62. It is only on fraud.
(Mr Vaz) No, because I do not have page 16. I am afraid
I do not go around carrying the Commission's proposals with me.
Sir John Stanley
63. Could you then give a further note to the
Committee in the light of the transcript of this exchange and
give us your view as to whether the Commission is proposing both
supra-national criminal court procedures and also supra-national
criminal legislation on this particular area?
(Mr Vaz) I will certainly give you a note on it. If
you want me to interpret a Commission document I will certainly
do so.
64. Minister, do we understand from what you
have said that the British Government is opposed both to the procedural
leg of this proposal and also to the criminal justice leg of this
proposal?
(Mr Vaz) As you put it, yes.
Chairman
65. But it is clear that there is no serious
political will within the Council of Ministers in favour of that
proposal?
(Mr Vaz) No, Chairman. We discussed this at Tampere
and that was the view then and it remains the view now.
66. And the suggestion is confined to the area
of fraud?
(Mr Vaz) Indeed. The point is that our Government
and our criminal intelligence organisations will work with our
European partners. That was the whole purpose of Tampere, to get
jurisdictions to work together, to make sure that there was an
international approach to catching criminals. What we do not subscribe
to and do not sign up to is one criminal code.
Mr Rowlands
67. Commissioner Barnier also told us in the
meeting we had with him on 3 February: "In an EU of 30, it
would be necessary to allow a small group to move ahead without
blocking the work of the EU. Without reinforced co-operation members
would move ahead outside the EU." This is flexibility. I
am sure that used to be called variable geometry. How do you view
the concept of flexibility? Do you think it is much of a runner
or a starter or is it going to be developed at the IGC?
(Mr Vaz) We are concerned—and obviously this
matter has been raised before—to ensure that we have one
Europe with states that are equally valued. Those who support
the idea of enhanced co-operation or flexibility, whatever you
wish to describe it as, look at Europe as being an area where
certain countries can move forward together on certain issues
and that means by necessity others do not. We think that those
who support this move should make a case for it. We believe, as
it is currently described, that you will have a situation where
you will have a two-tier Europe and that is not in the interests
of the Member countries that are there and certainly not in the
interests of the applicants, all of whom have said to me—I
do not know what they have said to others but have said to me—they
want to belong to a Europe where all countries act together and
move forward in the same direction. That is why we have, for example,
Qualified Majority Voting in certain areas. For those who support
flexibility it is a very important point. It is being raised,
and it was raised with me last week when I met all the European
Ministers from various countries. I think the case must be put
by those who want to put it on the agenda.
68. Those who are in flavour of flexibility,
have they identified the areas in which they envisage this process
occurring? There are going to be examples. Schengen was a classic
example where a group of nations within the European Union decided
they wanted to establish borders and we all thought that was a
good way to proceed. Are there other areas where you feel this
pressure for some kind of flexibility is going to go on?
(Mr Vaz) Not specifically but the concept, as you
have correctly identified, is one that some countries are keen
to see discussed.
69. They must have some idea what they want
to do specifically in the areas covered by flexibility. Has anybody
identified them?
(Mr Vaz) I do not think so. We have had some discussions
with the countries who favour looking again at the Amsterdam provisions
on flexibility. I think it is possibly more of a psychological
mechanism for them.
70. Psychological?
(Mr Vaz) Psychological mechanism, it is a sort of
insurance, if you like, that if in a much enlarged community there
are a certain number of Member States who wish to go ahead with
reinforced co-operation in a certain area, that they should not
be blocked from doing so within the framework of the Treaty. So
without being very specific about what those areas might be, they
feel it would be a useful insurance, as I say, to have mechanisms
in the Treaty that do allow that to happen.
Chairman
71. There are no specific areas in prospect?
(Mr Vaz) Without any specific areas in prospect, there
are no specific areas which have been specifically mentioned in
the discussion in the IGC.
Mr Rowlands
72. In some ways one can see the sense of it,
the sense that once you go into a group of 30 countries, there
are going to be areas, the one that came up is Schengen and this
idea of the removal of border controls. Surely there are going
to be groups within the 30 who will feel they can proceed in a
much greater degree of co-operation and in a quite sensible, logical
process. Are we saying we do not mind that so long as it is outside
the institutions of the Treaty?
(Mr Vaz) What we are saying is we must look at what
those who support these measures believe to be the areas. As yet,
as Mr Lyall Grant has said, nobody has come up with a specific
proposal. We are relaxed about this but we are cautious also about
the fact that for the applicants, and indeed for the countries
that are in the EU, we are very keen that there should not be
a two tier Europe. It destroys the whole philosophy behind what
we want to achieve.
73. One other area that should concern us, if
it is done within the terms of the institution, is the whole morass
on the budgetary issue, whether one would be able to use the European
Union budget money for some of these flexible arrangements if
they are still inside the European Union?
(Mr Vaz) The case has not been made out for that as
yet. None of the countries that have stated that they are in favour
of this has made the case that it should extend to budgetary considerations.
74. Frankly with a Union of 30 do you not think
it will come up in one form or another? Is it not a realistic
approach to life?
(Mr Vaz) You are right, Mr Rowlands. You are right
to keep reminding us that this could be a Union of 30. I think
the challenge, therefore, is to make sure that the institutions
are ready. This is a concept which has been raised. We are relaxed
about it being raised but we think those who have raised it ought
to make up the case, they have not done so as yet.
Chairman
75. You do not reject it in principle?
(Mr Vaz) No.
(Mr Lyall Grant) Could I just add, Chairman, on that,
the key thing to remember is that there are flexibility provisions
in the Treaty already agreed at Amsterdam.
Mr Rowlands
76. Outside.
(Mr Lyall Grant) No, no they are within the Treaty.
They were introduced into the Treaty for the first time at Amsterdam.
The flexibility provisions are there. What some Member States
are talking about in the IGC is relaxing some of the conditions
that are set in those provisions in the Treaty.
77. They have to be agreed?
(Mr Lyall Grant) They have to be agreed by all Member
States.
78. There has to be agreement by everyone in
a flexible manner?
(Mr Lyall Grant) That is right. One of the proposals
that is being discussed is whether what is called the emergency
brake, which in essence does give all Member States a veto on
use of the flexibility provisions, should in fact be removed.
Sir David Madel
79. You said a bit earlier that what has caused
this IGC is the enlargement. So if the countries were not applying
to join we would not be involved in an IGC. That is what has caused
these discussions and the extra Treaty. Often an IGC leads to
"ever closer European Union" but do the Government think
from the British Government point of view we are virtually at
the limits of an "ever closer European Union" as far
as we are concerned?
(Mr Vaz) This Government is pro Europe.
| 
