TUESDAY 28 MARCH 2000
_________
Members present:
Mr Donald Anderson, in the Chair
Ms Diane Abbott
Dr Norman A Godman
Mr Eric Illsley
Mr Andrew Mackinlay
Sir David Madel
Mr Ted Rowlands
Sir John Stanley
Dr Phyllis Starkey
Mr David Wilshire
_________
MR KEITH VAZ, a Member of the House, Minister of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Office (Minister for Europe), and MR MARK LYALL GRANT,
Head of European Union Department (Internal), Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, examined.
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 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 JAC 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 Faro 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 the 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.
20. May I press you. I would like to identify those taxes that in
the terms of the Prime Minister are part of the hidden subsidies which need
to be removed. What are these taxes? Can you name the specific taxes that
we are talking about?
(Mr Lyall Grant) Perhaps I can add to that, Mr Chairman. The tax
package is made up of three separate items. There is what is called the
Withholding or Savings Tax Directive and then there is the Interest on
Royalties Directive, which is such an example as you have mentioned where we
think co-ordination to cut out double taxation between EU Member States is a
sensible idea.
21. Interest?
(Mr Lyall Grant) Taxation on interest and royalties. It is taxation
between a head company and a subsidiary company in another Member State. The
third element is a Code of Conduct on unfair taxation which is a group being
chaired by Dawn Primarolo from the Treasury. Those three elements make up the
tax package and we are in favour of two elements of that package, the interest
on royalties and the Code of Conduct group. We have difficulties with the
Draft Directive on the withholding tax, as you know, as it is currently
phased. The key point about those three elements is that they ought to be
agreed by unanimity. The Government does not say we do not want any tax
harmonisation or any tax co-ordination. What we do say is if there is going
to be some form of tax co-ordination it has to be by unanimity; it should not
be by qualified majority voting.
22. Once one agrees that these two areas are by unanimity to be a
part of the European Union from then on they are QMV and any alteration or
amendment in that area would be subject to qualified majority voting?
(Mr Lyall Grant) They would all be subject to unanimity?
23. Any subsequent changes would remain subject to unanimity.
(Mr Lyall Grant) That is correct.
Sir John Stanley
24. I would just like to pursue Mr Rowlands' point with just one
further question. Do we understand therefore that there is no tax that this
Government is prepared to see settled by a QMV process in the European Union?
(Mr Vaz) Yes, that is exactly what I said in the House during the last
questions.
25. Including withholding tax?
(Mr Vaz) Yes. Yes means yes.
Dr Starkey
26. Can I ask a question about some non-treaty reform. Do you accept
the recommendations that have been made by a report that is suggesting that
the significant package of non-treaty reform should be agreed at the end of
the IGC?
(Mr Vaz) I think we need to look, Dr Starkey, at what is left at the
end of the IGC. What we are very keen not to do is to burden the agenda to
such an extent that we do not deal with the leftovers from Amsterdam. These
are the core issues that we have to get completed. There is a view which
fewer countries are now pursuing that there will be this huge amount of time
left over which will allow us to discuss everything under the sun. This
simply will not happen. We need to look at the IGC process. Frankly, I think
the Faro conference is a good time to assess the progress of it and by then
we will know what the scope is. There are other countries that want to put
other things in but at the moment I think our position must remain to get a
full discussion and agreement on the three issues which are substantial
issues. These are not minor issues, they are substantial issues, and when
that is completed then we will see if there is any scope available. My view
and the Government's view is that there is no scope available for any major
discussions.
27. There is one area where this Committee has had considerable
concern which is difficulties in the administration of EU budgetary payments
to NGOs and other organisations and indeed also the problems that there have
been with the TACIS and PHARE technical assistance programmes. I think in
almost every investigation that we have done recently this problem has
recurred about the inefficiency of the TACIS programme in particular. There
is not anything at present on the IGC agenda to address these administrative
weaknesses. Would it not be a good idea to resolve these sort of problems
with some urgency to make sure that the current functioning of the EU is as
efficient and as effective as possible? Another example is Kosovo where there
was a health NGO which had been given six weeks to produce drugs for Kosovo
relabelled in all the languages and distribute them and it had taken more than
six weeks to get the money out of the EU.
(Mr Vaz) That is not within the scope of the IGC, as you correctly
identified Dr Starkey, but I think one must not regard the discussions in the
IGC as the only thing happening in the European Union at this time concerning
reform. The reforms that have been set out by Neil Kinnock and Romano Prodi
the way in which the European Union and Commission operate are reforms that
can actually look at the financial and administrative details you have just
mentioned and are not something that we are going to discuss within the scope
of these meetings. There is no reason why they cannot be addressed by the
so-called Kinnock reforms and I am sure they will be looked at it.
28. Will you be keeping under review whether they are adequately
addressed by that mechanism and, if not, would you maybe look again?
(Mr Vaz) If we were not keeping them under review we certainly will be
now you have raised them at this Committee.
Mr Wilshire
29. I want to go back for a moment to qualified majority voting
because I do not think we can reasonably leave it where we did. Knowing the
Minister's enthusiasm for modern technology I had a look at the Labour Party's
website on this matter and it says there that "we shall defend our veto in
every area where it is the British interest to do so." There we have a very
clear Government statement of when it is in our interest. I am nervous
because having made that statement the Government has then abandoned it in 15
areas already. I do not think the answer Sir David got goes far enough. Sir
David, Minister, recited to you the six areas of principle where you have said
no concessions, but if you go back to adapting the institutions to make a
success of the enlargement, if you go back to the document produced by the
Commission, I have found at least 22, in my judgment, issues which fall
outside your six areas of principle and what I would like to know is whether
you agree with me that those items fall outside. If you are saying, "We are
going to listen and then decide", if they are within your six surely you are
not going to listen before you decide because you have made your mind up?
There are 22 areas which fall outside. Chairman, you will not let me read out
22 one by one, but if I give you that list of 22 will you confirm to this
Committee that my judgment is correct that they do not fall within your six
areas?
(Mr Vaz) Mr Wilshire, first of all I have not had the pleasure of
looking at the Labour Party's website but I certainly will do so after this
meeting.
Mr Wilshire: It is a fascinating place to go.
Mr Mackinlay: You both need to get a life!
Mr Wilshire
30. It is in the fiction section, Minister, if you really want to
know where to look for it.
(Mr Vaz) I can only repeat what I, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime
Minister have said on many, many occasions. I know it is boring but I am
going to have to repeat it again and that is we will examine qualified
majority voting on a case-by-case basis. I have not said at the Committee
today or at any other stage that in all other areas other than the six areas
I have mentioned we will get qualified majority voting. What I have said is
that we will look at the situation and look at each area on a case-by-case
basis and have a discussion. It is not this Government that extended
qualified majority voting a record time; it was the previous Government that
extended it 42 times under the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty
and it was the Shadow Foreign Secretary of course who signed the Maastricht
Treaty. So we are very conscious that these are issues that need to be looked
at very carefully. I cannot negotiate the terms of reference of each area at
this Committee today, you would not expect me to. Reciting 22 areas and me
saying yes or no to them is not going to get us very far because we will start
that procedure when we discuss these matters.
31. I heard what the Minister said but that is not what I asked him.
Two things that arise from what he has just said, Chairman. First of all, you
are saying that you are prepared to consider all matters put before you but
at the same time you are saying there are six areas where you are not prepared
to. Can we be clear. If a proposal to extend QMV falls within one of those
six categories are you saying you are still prepared to consider it or are you
going to say, no, on principle we are not prepared to consider it? Which is
it?
(Mr Vaz) We will do what every Government has done on these matters
and that is look at what is in the national interest. What we have set out
in the IGC White Paper of 15 February is a clear statement about six core
areas which are matters of concern and have been raised on a number of
occasions, indeed they have been raised today within a few minutes of this
evidence session beginning. What I have said is that in all the other areas,
Mr Wilshire, we will examine QMV on a case by case basis. We have no fear
about the QMV. If you look at the figures, Mr Wilshire, last year we were on
the losing side only twice and in the year before we were on the losing side
three times on QMV. QMV benefits the national interest. In all those other
areas we will look at it on a case by case basis. I am not going to tell you
today whether we have made a decision on them because the negotiations and
discussions have not even begun.
32. So there are no circumstances under which this Government will
agree to any exception if that falls within the definition of your six, is
that what you are saying to us?
(Mr Vaz) Yes.
33. Fine. So it would be possible to determine very early on whether
a proposal made by the Commission fell within that category or not? That is
all I am asking you to do, to say do these 22 fall within those six or do they
not, not whether you support them or not. That is all I am asking you to say
and will you do that by supplying the list?
(Mr Vaz) I do not know because the first thing is I have not read the
source of your information, which is the Labour Party's website, which I do
not regard, I am afraid, splendid though it must be, as the Ark of the
Covenant of discussions on the IGC.
34. But you have read the Commission's document.
(Mr Vaz) Indeed I have read the Commission's document.
35. So you know the 22 items.
(Mr Vaz) I have read many, many documents since I became the Minister
for Europe and the Commission produces many documents on these areas. I can
only give you the same answer - I am sorry to be boring and pedantic - which
is that we will look at QMV on a case by case basis. We do not fear QMV in
certain areas for the simple reason, and I have given you one of them, the
European Court of Justice rules on procedures and appointments, that it is
good for Britain in some areas. We will do what is in the national interests
of this country. We are in Europe to work with our colleagues but also to
defend the national interest.
Mr Wilshire: Thank you, Chairman. I hope you will supply the list and
see what answer we get.
Ms Abbott: It is a great pleasure to have you in front of us, Mr Vaz.
We have counted your colleagues in and we have counted them out and we expect
to have you in front of us for many years to come.
Chairman: That is just the lead in, wait for it.
Ms Abbott
36. I want to ask you about Austria and whether the measures taken
against the Austrian Government are going to have any effect on the workings
of the IGC?
(Mr Vaz) Thank you very much for your very kind comments, Ms Abbott.
Can I repeat that I hope when I appear here you will be on the Committee on
those occasions also. The situation on Austria is clear. We have said to
Austria that we will judge the Austrian Government by its actions and by its
deeds. I have not sensed any attempt by Austria to in any way endanger the
process of the IGC. Austria has made it clear through the statements of its
Chancellor, who was previously the Foreign Secretary of Austria, that they
support the enlargement process. I have no reason to believe that position
has changed.
37. So when on 31 January Portugal informed the Austrian Government
of a statement which had been agreed by the Heads of State and Members of the
EU that "... in the event of a government being formed which involves the
FPO..." the following events will happen. "Governments of XIV Member States
will not promote or accept any bilateral official contacts at policital level
with an Austrian Government integrating the FPO; There will be no support in
favour of Austraian candidates .... Austrian Ambassadors in EU capitals will
only be received at a technical level." What was the sense of all that?
(Mr Vaz) The point was that as far as Austria was concerned, with a
coalition partner espousing the views put forward by Mr Heider, who was the
leader of one of the partners, it was important that the European Union set
down certain benchmarks over the way in which it should treat a country, not
a people but a country, a government, that had espoused the kinds of
statements that Mr Heider had. Those measures were important because it made
it clear to all that we would not tolerate the kind of language that Mr Heider
had used.
38. It was not about Mr Heider, it was about his party, his party's
platform. It was not about an individual, it was always about the party's
platform.
(Mr Vaz) You are absolutely right, Ms Abbott, but they still remain
part of the coalition.
39. Are you saying that this statement is a dead letter, that it will
have no effect on the workings of the IGC?
(Mr Vaz) No. There are two different points here. The statement is
not a dead letter, it has been followed to the letter. As Minister I am
following the points that have been raised and in no way has that affected the
workings of the IGC because Austria, in the statements that it has made, is
committed to enlargement. The IGC exists because of enlargement. If we were
not enlarging we would not be going through the IGC process.
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 Heider 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 Heider 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 Heider 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 Heider 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 Faro 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 it 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.
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 about 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.
80. That can mean a lot.
(Mr Vaz) Right. It is pro reform, also. We believe very firmly that in
pursuing our European agenda, at the heart of our European agenda is obviously
working with countries within the European Union but also defending Britain's
national interest. When you say we would not have an IGC if there had not been
a move for enlargement, which is repeating my words, I say yes but I say,
also, that the need for reform is always ever present in our minds. Reform
does not mean integration and closer co-operation. Reform means looking at
the way in which the EU does its work and making sure it is done more
efficiently and more effectively and that it is related better to the people
of the United Kingdom. This has not happened and therefore as part of the IGC
agenda one must look at the parallel activities that are going on, the Charter
of Rights that is being discussed and at the same time the reforms being put
forward by Mr Prodi and Mr Kinnock. At the end of the day can we get ever
closer? We want to get closer to our European colleagues because we believe
that the Single Market has been a tremendous success. Being close to them
means Britain's agenda is respected and followed as in Lisbon which was an
astonishingly successful conference as far as we were concerned, the whole
economic agenda being transformed by 15 countries determined to see a new
economic model. All these are ways in which not just Britain has benefited
by change but also the rest of Europe benefits.
81. We will have to keep active to keep the show on the road.
(Mr Vaz) Absolutely.
82. Some people say the European Union is like a bicycle; if you stop
peddling it will all fall down. I take the gist of your views. Can I just
ask about timing. Whatever agreement is reached at the summit in Nice there
will have to be legislation in this House. The Government would not want to
be accused of being hesitant so I assume in January 2001 the Government would
move straight to legislation on what had been agreed at the Nice summit.
(Mr Vaz) At the risk of being corrected by Mr Mackinay on these
procedural matters, we will want to make sure that we proceed as quickly as
possible. I do not have control of the legislative programme so I cannot tell
you now, Sir David, that legislation is going to be before the House in
January. I do not think anybody knows but I can tell you this: we have taken
the lead on enlargement. The Prime Minister has been behind the enlargement.
He has been the prime mover in Europe. We will move as quickly and as swiftly
as we possibly can to make sure that we do our bit, conscious that there are
countries outside waiting for this process to be completed before they can
join.
83. The Government has to move quite quickly or some people might
say, "There goes Britain again being half-hearted", and the Government would
not want that.
(Mr Vaz) I am sure that we will move as swiftly as we possibly can.
No one can say that we are half hearted on enlargement.
84. You have not got the problems that other parliaments have because
this Parliament has still got two and a quarter years to run.
(Mr Vaz) If we have got as much as time as that, Sir David ---
Sir David Madel: In theory.
Dr Starkey
85. You mentioned a European Charter of Fundamental Rights. You are
on record in a written answer as saying we, I take it the Government, do not
therefore favour the Charter's incorporation into treaties. What do you see
as the purpose of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?
(Mr Vaz) I thought you were going raise this question, Dr Starkey.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights is a very important opportunity for the
European Union to set out clearly the rights and responsibilities of its
citizens. As you know, the Charter of Rights process is a parallel process.
It is formed in a sense outside the structures of the European Union. The
Prime Minister and indeed Parliament has a representative through Mr Win
Griffiths and Lord Bowness is also represented on the Charter drafting
committee. At the end of the day we will have in one document a clear and
concise list of the rights that we enjoy as European Union citizens.
86. Can you explain how that relates to the European Convention on
Human Rights?
(Mr Vaz) It does relate to it and there will be an overlap because the
European Convention does confer rights. As you know, the European Union is
not a signatory to the European Convention but individual countries are, so
there will be an overlap. They should be seen in a sense together. What the
Charter will not be doing is to be giving out new rights to people, rights
that they do not have at the moment. I think we have a pretty sufficient list
of rights already without the need to add anything more.
87. Can I just clarify, does the Charter of Fundamental Rights
contain any rights that European citizens are not already guaranteed through
their individual states signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights?
(Mr Vaz) Yes, it will have some rights that are not in the European
Convention.
88. Such as what?
(Mr Vaz) I cannot tell you now this minute the list of those rights
they do have there but I can tell you what it will do is to codify the rights
that exist already. They will not be trying in any way to impose new rights.
It is a showcase of rights for the people of Europe and it will give people
the opportunity to look at this declaration. I think what Lord Goldsmith, the
Prime Minister's representative, has suggested is a document which sets out
clearly what your rights are, a two-part document in a sense, and the second
part talks about the sources of those rights. That is why it is important to
do that.
89. This Government effectively incorporated the European Convention
on Human Rights into our law so that individual citizens could seek redress
within our own courts. Are there proposals to do the same with the Charter
of Fundamental Rights if it contains additional rights that are not within the
European Convention? If there are no such proposals, how are individual
citizens who believe their rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights have
been abused to seek redress?
(Mr Vaz) In the way that they do now. It is not a new piece of
legislation that will give people new rights. If you have a right that is not
conferred by ECHR but conferred in some other way as a citizen of the European
Union, you will be able to use your redress.
Chairman
90. In what way will you be able to seek redress if you cannot do so
through the European Convention or through our own courts?
(Mr Vaz) Chairman, far be it for me to say this in the presence of
such a distinguished lawyer, but the fact is that if you have already these
existing rights what we are not suggesting is that you should have a new court
or new method by which they should be enforced.
Mr Mackinlay
91. If you check the record tomorrow you will find that you said
there could be some rights over and above the European Convention. That is
what you said.
(Mr Vaz) Over and above what people already have, not over and above
what the Charter drafting committee are going to give people. There are no
new rights contained in the Charter of Rights. It is a declaration of
existing rights and one should not get carried away with thinking somehow this
is a new set of rights to be enforceable. If you check the record that is
exactly what I said. If the only rights contained in the Charter were
existing rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights there
would be no point in having it.
92. Presumably you or the Government would envisage, if this comes
about, this being something which lawyers could advance in their arguments in
advancing a case or appeal where there has been a remedy sought in relation
to rights denied under the European Convention?
(Mr Vaz) No, with respect to the Chairman and others, we are not
intending to produce a Charter of Rights in order to assist lawyers in
amassing more fees. We are producing here a declaration of existing rights,
not new rights.
93. I do not mean this facetiously but apart from it being a nice
poster with doves on it, which no doubt will get to Storey Gate somehow or
another, what purpose will it serve if it is not appealable? Let us be blunt
about this. Is it the British Government going along with this because they
want to resist it for wider reasons perhaps, but their intention is that it
is not going to amount to a ha'penny worth of beans, is it?
(Mr Vaz) Mr Mackinlay, with the greatest respect, that is your
interpretation of it. The interpretation of the Council of Ministers was that
it was important that we should have a document that contained the body of
rights that people have. Whether the poster has doves on it is, I think, a
little premature because we are still within the process of discussing the
format of the way in which the Charter is to be worked on. What the Charter
will not do, I can assure the Committee, is confer any new rights that do not
exist and that is why a declaration is important. People often accuse the
European Union of not being able to communicate effectively with its citizens.
I believe this is an important way we can remind citizens of what they get
from being members of the European Union.
94. So it is like when you and I were candidates, we signed the
European Social Chapter poster which we got from Storey Gate, that one?
(Mr Vaz) I cannot remember that far back, Mr Mackinlay. It is such a
long time ago.
95. I have to say I remember when I knew Ministers who were Members
of the Common Market Safeguards Campaign but that was a long time ago.
(Mr Vaz) I think I have a bit of amnesia.
96. I understand that. Just a small point, if I may, you said that
Win Griffiths and another colleague represent this Parliament. Who appointed
them?
(Mr Vaz) By Parliaments, by the Speakers, by the Lord Chancellor and
by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Chairman: Now, Dr Starkey is continuing a line of questioning and then
Mr Wilshire on the same point.
Dr Starkey
97. To follow up on that, do they report back or consult in any way?
(Mr Vaz) Indeed they do report back. Only a fortnight ago I held a
meeting which enabled Members of Parliament to come and talk to the
representatives. Lord Goldsmith and I will be giving evidence to the Select
Committee next week, the Scrutiny Committee, and there have been debates in
Parliament on this. In fact, I encourage people to write to the Prime
Minister's personal representative and to the representative of the House.
They need to seek opportunities to be able to report back to Parliament on
these matters. Certainly, we will report back as Ministers once the decisions
have been taken.
98. Finally, to close this line of questioning which I have been
pursuing, your view is effectively that this European Charter of Fundamental
Rights tabulates, it codifies the rights that are already pre-existing, some
of which are also covered by the European Convention on Human Rights but they
are conditional rights. Is that simply your view or is that the view of all
the Member States within the European Union?
(Mr Vaz) It is the view of the Member States as expressed to me.
Obviously there is a drafting committee which is going on and the drafting
committee will look at ways in which the views of the Council, which
established the idea of the Charter, are put into practice. There is no huge
appetite, I do not think, about conferring new rights on people. I think
there is an understanding of what we want to achieve.
Mr Wilshire
99. There are two things I want to get absolutely clear in my mind
about this. I have been listening very carefully and the score is currently
3-all in what I have noted. The score is 3-all to saying "no, there will be
no new rights" which I think I heard the Minister say three times, and it will
appear in the record tomorrow, but I have heard him now also say or agree
three times "yes it will result in us having rights that we do not currently
have".
(Mr Vaz) No.
Mr Wilshire: The record will either say that or it will not. I wrote
down two comments that the Minister made very early on. He said "no new
rights" and then he said "yes there will be rights for EU citizens that they
do not have at the moment". The record will bear that out.
Dr Starkey: That they do not have at the moment.
Mr Wilshire
100. Could we be told, Minister, whether it is no rights that we
do not have at the moment or there will be rights we do not have at the
moment, which is it?
(Mr Vaz) There are no new rights that we do not have at the moment, Mr
Wilshire. Your problem is that you left the room and, therefore, you did not
hear the discussion. The discussion was quite clear and I made it quite clear
that there are no new rights. This Charter body is not in a position to confer
new rights on European citizens.
101. The rights I have at the moment, as an EU citizen, are
contained in the Convention on Human Rights?
(Mr Vaz) No.
Chairman: No, that will be within domestic law.
Mr Wilshire
102. Within domestic law. So there will be no addition to that?
(Mr Vaz) No. There are going to be no new rights conferred by the
Charter of Rights. You came into the room in the middle of my conversation
with Dr Starkey when she said "if it is just the European Convention of Human
Rights why do you not just have that or are there going to be additional
rights to that". Of course, as European citizens we enjoy additional rights
to those contained in the European Convention of Human Rights. If it was just
the European Convention of Human Rights there would be no point in having a
Charter of Fundamental Rights.
103. That was the first point. The Minister has made a point which
occurred to me long since, this is a silly waste of time. The other thing that
the Minister said is that we will pursue our rights as we do now. So does the
Government support putting this Charter into the Treaty?
(Mr Vaz) No.
104. If we are to pursue the rights given to us in this Charter,
how are we to do it?
(Mr Vaz) In the way that they are pursued at the moment.
105. How is that?
(Mr Vaz) Which one are you referring to?
106. Anything in the Charter. If we wish to complain about a
breach of our rights given by the Charter, how will we do it?
(Mr Vaz) They are not given, Mr Wilshire, can I explain again, the
Charter will not give you rights. It was very eloquently put by Dr Starkey,
if I may say so, and I shall study her words and use them myself. The Charter
will declare, it will codify existing rights.
Dr Starkey
107. I think they were your words.
(Mr Vaz) Therefore you will pursue those existing rights. There is no
need to get worked up about this, Mr Wilshire. They are not new rights.
Mr Wilshire
108. How will we pursue them?
(Mr Vaz) In the way in which they at the moment pursue these rights.
109. Which is how?
(Mr Vaz) It depends on the right, it depends on the right that you are
discussing and which one you want to talk about.
110. Will any of these rights be justiciable before the European
Court of Justice?
(Mr Vaz) If they are at the moment they will be. We will not be
giving a new set of justiciable rights to people. If they are pursued in that
way today, they will be pursued in that way on 31 December when the Charter
is complete. We are not going to have any new tiers of law, any new methods
of enforcement, any new ways in which people can prosecute. It is a
declaration, a codification, a simplification, a communication of existing
rights.
111. On the 24 January, Minister, you said to the European Select
Committee that the French would not support taking these matters before the
European Court of Justice. Yet we now have the French saying, along with the
Germans and the Commission, that they want them to be taken before the
European Court of Justice. Do you wish to change your view that the French
will not support it now that they have said they will?
(Mr Vaz) No, I cannot change a view that I gave in January. If that is
what the French told me on January 24, I have faith in the report of their
views to the Committee. If they have changed their views then it is a matter
for the French and the Germans and we will report back in the way in which it
is appropriate if their views have changed. I am not going to change something
that I have said. That is the position as it was on 24 January.
Chairman: I think we need to move on. Mr Mackinlay.
Mr Mackinlay
112. Indeed, I would like to move on. I just want to say that
often I get misunderstood here, I actually think it is perhaps a pity this is
not a justiciable thing. In case of guilt by association, anybody should
think otherwise, I want to make that quite clear and no doubt it will be noted
at Storey Gate. The thing I want to ask you is, probably Mr Lyall Grant can
help us on this, the way I understand it now is in recent months the agenda
for European Ministerial Councils is now on the internet prior to the meeting
- I think that is so - I wonder if you can confirm that? Secondly, will the
agenda items for the meetings which you attend in advance of the IGC and all
the consequential meetings be available also now on the internet?
(Mr Vaz) I am afraid I do not know. Mr Lyall Grant?
(Mr Lyall Grant) Yes, I can help you with that a little bit Mr
Mackinlay. At the moment it is left largely to the discretion of the
Presidency how much of the agenda they publish and put on the internet or
publish in any other way. There is some discussion going on at working group
level, which will come up to the Council for decision, to codify that and make
much more transparent the agendas of all the Council meetings and working
bodies. As far as the IGC discussions are concerned, the Presidency is
bringing forward a number of working papers which are being discussed in the
preparatory group and they do have the intention of posting all of those on
the internet more or less as they happen and, therefore, they should be
available, but to make sure that the committees do have those documents Mr Vaz
has agreed, I think, with the chairman of the three committees that he will
on a monthly basis send all the Presidency papers over to the committees
anyway. What I cannot confirm is whether the Portuguese Presidency have done,
in fact what they intended to do which is to put all these papers on the
internet immediately.
113. Okay. I am very grateful for Mr Vaz's offer to the chairmen
of committees, I mean that sincerely. It does seem to me there is an important
point between this negotiating period and, if I might say, a general point as
from here onwards. We do find that there is a disparity of treatment between
our Parliament and many other Parliaments with their ministers. Their
ministers under the rules have to come to them before hand and say "This is
what we are going to discuss, X, Y and Z" actually before the event. I would
have thought that now is the time to deal with this. Would it be possible, in
response to what you said to clarify the position as to what the Portuguese
Presidency intend to do, where we can find it and the moment of availability?
If they are technically in the public domain could they not be demonstrably
put in the public domain and Minister perhaps you would let us have them in
the Vote Office or via our Clerks at the point when they are available in
Stockholm, Paris, Brussels or wherever? Do you see the point I am making?
(Mr Vaz) I do, Mr Mackinlay.
114. We are entitled as Parliamentarians to be at the starting
grid along with our cousins in the other parliaments. There is no criticism
at all, it has drifted and it is half and half it seems as regards what is
available. Could we make this great constitutional advance this afternoon
saying that we will be able to have access when others do and that you will
help us do it by telling us the position and/or making them available?
(Mr Vaz) Mr Chairman, I think Mr Mackinlay makes a very, very
important point and if there is any way in which the Government can help make
the documents more accessible. We certainly do not want to be in a worse
position than other Parliaments. If they are putting out the agendas on their
internets and websites and they are generally available, I will look to see
how we can improve that.
Chairman: I do understand that we as a Committee receive the list
monthly and that list is circulated by the Clerk.
Mr Mackinlay
115. I gave him full praise for that. I gave him a star for that.
But that is all retrospective and we want it at the same time others get it.
Journalists could get it but we want it facilitated.
(Mr Vaz) Mr Chairman, a star from Mr Mackinlay is always welcome but
I will make sure that I try and get two stars from him and accede to his
request.
Chairman: Dr Godman, who has been very patient.
Dr Godman
116. This has been a very interesting exchange of views this
afternoon. I am sorry I missed seven minutes. You have been pretty positive.
You have said, for example, that HMG has taken the lead on enlargement and
that HMG is anxious to avoid a two-tier European Union. I think that is going
to be near impossible myself but, given your optimism, have any of your
colleagues from other Member States of the European Union voiced doubts about
the possibility of failure to adhere to the timetable for enlargement?
(Mr Vaz) Dr Godman, I know you have a particular interest in
enlargement and you are right to keep raising the aspirations of applicants.
It will be a different Europe when countries do actually come in. There is
always a worry amongst the applicants, some of whom are watching this evidence
session, that the timetable is slipping. We want to make sure that they are
able to conduct their negotiations as efficiently and as quickly as possible
and I have made it clear to all those who have visited me that if the United
Kingdom can help in any way we want to help. They have their own timetables
as to when they want to see themselves as part of the European Union. Some
may be a little ambitious; others may be spot on. But it is difficult to come
to a conclusion until they are in a position to complete their negotiations
on the very important chapters you have mentioned such as agriculture. The
first six have been completed even though they are no longer called the first
six and second six. The last time that we were aware, we have opened 23 of
the 31 chapters of the acquis. That is good progress. The Portuguese hope
to open up the last eight during their Presidency. There is really good
progress being made. But I think that we must also be conscious that public
opinion in those countries may wane if there is any feeling that we are not
doing our best to support them. That is why the United Kingdom feels so
strongly about getting the IGC over with in 2000 and getting it finished
quickly and putting it through various Parliaments.
117. Can I just say I have no wish to dishearten the people of
Poland and other applicant states, but I find it difficult to imagine, for
example, a coalition government in Dublin or other governments elsewhere in
the European Union agreeing to radical reform of the Common Agricultural
Policy in order to meet the legitimate expectations of those people employed
in the Polish agricultural industry. Let me come to another industry that
rarely gets a mention in these things. Will you confirm, and if you cannot
today I am sure you will try your best to do so by way of a letter to the
Chairman, that there are no similar problems to those bedeviling the CAP with
regard to the Common Fisheries Policy, that we will never see vessels from the
large Polish fleet fishing in the North Sea and Irish Sea? Am I right in
assuming that as part of the negotiations those nations with fishing fleets -
and I think Poland is one of very few amongst the applicant states that has
the capability to fish in our waters, dare I say it, or European Union waters
- they have been told that they will not be equal members in relation to the
Common Fisheries Policy?
(Mr Vaz) On your first point, I think that there is concern over
certain areas. What we need to do, though, is identify any problems that
exist to try and help the applicants as much as we can. Timetables are
incredibly difficult to set but we must do our best to try and help them
achieve that. On the fisheries policy I will write to you with all the
details that you have requested.
118. I would also like to know because I think it is in the
interests of the Polish people in particular and their maritime industries,
indeed I represent a maritime community, maybe Mr Lyall Grant can answer this
question, what assistance, what advice has been given to the Polish government
in respect to what the European Union people in Brussels call the
"restructuring" of their fleet, in other words the diminution of their fleet?
Have they been given assistance? You will have to write to me.
(Mr Vaz) We will write to you with all that detail.
Chairman
119. Before turning to Sir John Stanley can I pursue this point of
Dr Godman's on agriculture. We know that the budget of the European Union has
been set until 2006. Clearly if Poland were to join in 2003-2004 it would not
be able to benefit from aids on the agricultural side without mightily
altering that budget, so is there a real danger that because Poland might be
held up and not being able to benefit in any way from the budget that that
could stall the whole process of enlargement?
(Mr Vaz) No, I do not think so, Mr Chairman. The negotiations are on-
going. The agricultural chapter when it is opened will address these issues.
In the discussions I have had with the Commissioner he is keen to help all the
applicant countries in the best way he can.
120. He may be keen but is there money?
(Mr Vaz) That is a matter for the negotiations. Certainly as far as
we are concerned, those negotiations when they are completed will not be
allowed to in any way derail the process. Polish agriculture will not derail
the enlargement process.
Dr Godman
121. But the farming lobby is just about the most powerful
political pressure group within the European Union.
(Mr Vaz) Indeed it is, and that is why it is extremely important that
the negotiations that take place when the agriculture chapter is opened are
done so in a robust but also an effective way. You are right, these are very
very important matters that need to be dealt with.
Chairman: Sir John is about to open a new chapter and then we will go
on to defence and security.
Sir John Stanley
122. That is the chapter I am about to open. Are you happy for me
to proceed on that? Minister, as you know, the Commission has proposed that
in this IGC there should be established closer co-operation in the field of
common foreign and security policy. Do you envisage there being Treaty
changes - and I stress Treaty changes - to bring about closer co-operation
common foreign and security policy?
(Mr Vaz) Sir John, we will make that decision at Faro. Certainly the
point you have raised is one that has already been raised and we are looking
at this. When we come to the final Portuguese Council meeting we will make
that decision by then. That is one of the points that has been raised. There
may well need to be and we will look at it then.
123. Are you saying that as far as the British Government is
concerned it is reserving its position or is it sympathetic to Treaty changes?
(Mr Vaz) I think we will look at the position then.
124. Can I ask you in one specific area what is the British
Government's position on creating a competence in the EU Treaty legal sense,
for the EU in the defence and security field?
(Mr Lyall Grant) Our lawyers are looking at the question of whether the
sort of arrangements that we are setting up under the common defence system
will require Treaty amendment. Areas where we think the Treaty amendment may
be required are precisely in the areas to give the committees that will be set
up, particularly the Political and Security Committee, the authority to take
operational decisions in times of crisis. At the moment that committee does
not have that authority and any committee set up under these new structures,
without Treaty amendment, would not have that authority. That is one area
where our lawyers advise that some Treaty amendment may be required.
Likewise, if that committee is to be expanded in some way to include some non
members of the EU, because under defence there will be flexibility
arrangements whereby there may be less than the 15 who want to join in some
form of defence operation, and there may be more than the 15 who want to join
in, so you will have some form of ad hoc committee. Now, to create that ad
hoc committee again might require Treaty amendment. If it is necessary to make
agreements between that committee, between the EU and a third country, again
some amendments to the Treaty may be required. In all those areas our lawyers
are looking at whether the defence amendments will be required. As the
Minister was saying that decision is likely to be taken in Faro in June.
125. Thank you. That is very helpful. These are not just simply
issues of drafting and legality, what lies behind my questions, Minister, and
I am sure you understand, is the issue of whether or not the EU is going to
be given a competence, and I am using that in the EU sense, a competence in
the defence and security area. I turn to your civil servants, I assume
Ministers must have a view as to whether or not it is desirable that the EU
should have a competence in this area, competence carrying with it the
application of EU law and competence carrying with it the right of initiative
by the European Commission?
(Mr Vaz) On the whole in the discussions that we have been having on
Defence and Security Policy - and this is a new area for us, that is why we
are not trying to fudge the issue by saying we have not decided whether or not
there is going to be Treaty change - we are looking at the advice that we have
received and we will make the decision at Faro. What we do not want to do is
be in a position where any of the agreements and the relationships that we
have at the moment, such as the ones we have with NATO, are in any way
affected by any particular initiative that the European Union might take. I
think these are issues that in the end have got to go to the Council for
decisions to be made. I think the defence debate has moved much more swiftly
than one could possibly have imagined a year ago. I think this is a good
thing. We are always conscious though that in taking any initiative that we
need to keep on board our NATO allies because NATO remains the bedrock of our
whole defence policy and, also, those non EU countries that happen to be
members of NATO. Therefore the legality, the whole question of initiative,
needs to be looked at very carefully indeed. My view is that we need to assess
the relationships that we have with the other organisations that we deal with
and come to the decision as to whether or not we need to make that entrenched
in the Treaty.
(Mr Lyall Grant) Perhaps I can just add by way of clarification that
the European Union as such already has competence in these defence issues; the
European Community does not and that is a very important distinction.
Everything that we do in the defence field, as it is in the Common Foreign and
Security Policy field, is inter-governmental. You referred to the
Commission's right of initiative, in fact there will be no right of initiative
for the Commission in defence because it is inter-governmental activity.
126. I am delighted that Mr Lyall Grant has given the answer that
I would have expected the Minister to give himself because that is the key
issue and there are certainly some within the EU institutions who are looking
to have competence extended to the Commission in this particular area. I
would hope, Minister, you would rule out emphatically the British Government
ever agreeing to a competence being established in the defence and security
area for the European Commission?
(Mr Vaz) Sir John, I made it clear to you in my answer that this is a
matter for the Council to decide upon and that remains our position. The
Council, as you know, is not the Commission.
Mr Wilshire
127. Minister, do you support merging the WEU and the EU?
(Mr Vaz) I believe that we should look to areas in which the WEU and
the EU should work together. The WEU still exists. Mr Solana has played a
very important role in ensuring that the work that is done by the WEU is
carried on by the EU. I think that the whole defence and security area has
succeeded because we have in the personality of Mr Solana somebody who knows
the organisations extremely well. When you say merger, I think that in time
one will find that the work of the WEU is one that can properly be conducted
by the States within the European Union working with their partners outside.
128. You said that the EU would carry on. Do I take it that it is
Government policy to encourage the EU to take over where the WEU has left?
(Mr Vaz) No, it is Government policy to encourage the kind of close
working relationship that exists between the organisations.
129. Also, you said in the previous reply the EU working with the
WEU and the non members within the WEU who are not members of the EU. How
will they work together? For example, how will Norway participate in decision
taking of the EU's defence initiative?
(Mr Vaz) Because when we have WEU meetings I attend as the Foreign
Affairs Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence attends and, therefore,
we are able, through the personalities of ministers attending these various
meetings, to ensure that countries like Norway are included in the decision
making processes.
130. The Norwegians would be invited to those EU meetings?
(Mr Vaz) No, we participate as Foreign Affairs Ministers at meetings
of the WEU. For example, if we have a situation, as we have had when Defence
and Security Policy became an issue that the European Union was concerned
about, we would invite countries who are not members of the EU to be involved
in discussions that are taking place. We have done this already on three
occasions.
131. Would you allow them to have a vote if the matter was put to
the vote?
(Mr Vaz) The matter has never been put to the vote.
132. If the EU develops this initiative, presumably it will want
to use WEU facilities and WEU know-how?
(Mr Vaz) I think that the way in which we wish to proceed is on the
understanding that we want to work with the WEU, because we are part of it.
We want these two organisations to work side by side and that is the way in
which we have approached the whole Defence and Security Policy issue.
133. As you will be aware, the WEU currently has a parliamentary
oversight to it through its Assembly, what would be the parliamentary
oversight of the EU's defence initiative and defence capability?
(Mr Vaz) Exactly the same parliamentary oversight that we have at the
moment.
134. There would be no role for the WEU Assembly in the oversight
of the EU's activities?
(Mr Vaz) No.
135. Thank you. What will be NATO's input to this European Union
defence initiative?
(Mr Vaz) NATO's input is absolutely crucial. NATO is the bedrock of
our defence policy. We work extremely closely as the European Union with NATO,
of course, because we believe that the way in which we wish to approach
defence issues is with the co-operation of our NATO partners and that means
those NATO partners that are not members of the European Union. Practically,
it means if we have a discussion on Defence and Security Policy within the
European Union, we have so far, when these matters have been discussed,
immediately had a meeting with those non EU NATO members so everybody is kept
informed of the way in which we wish to develop that policy. There is no
threat to NATO from the European Union developing a Common Defence and
Security Policy. NATO is enhanced by this.
136. So NATO will be involved in the European initiative?
(Mr Vaz) Of course it will be through its members.
137. So how will arrangements be made therefore for non-EU members
who are members of NATO to participate in the decision-taking process?
(Mr Vaz) We are working on structures at this moment. I think that
one should not expect these matters to proceed at an enormous pace. I have
been astonished at the pace of change since the initiative was announced a few
years ago, but the issue is how do you practically ensure that our partners
in NATO feel that they are part of that process because they are clearly part
of that process. We would not in the European Union do anything that was
against the instincts and the policies of NATO.
138. When working with NATO on defence initiatives and taking
decisions, there will be some members of the European Union who are members
of NATO as well and therefore they will have a close relationship with the
remainder of NATO countries that are not within the EU, but there are some
members of the European Union that are not members of NATO. Will those EU
members have an equal status when taking decisions involving NATO?
(Mr Vaz) It happens practically at this moment. After EU Ministers
consider defence or foreign policy security issues and the only occasion it
has happened was when the initiative was launched, there was a separate
meeting immediately after which involved those from the non-EU countries. Our
mission is not in any way to undermine NATO. Our mission in this is to
support NATO. The defence and security policy is based on the philosophy that
the European Union needs to be able to deal with the crisis management tasks
that it has not so far been able to deal with and the countries themselves
need to have the competence in order to deal these issues and the capability
in order to deal with them.
139. Yes, I take that point. If you look to Kosovo as an example
of what has happened in the past (and if I understand these initiatives
correctly hopefully it could be done differently on a European scale in the
future) you will find that the high technology, the manpower, the firepower
and the money were all American. Is it the intention of the EU to replace
American technology, American manpower, American firepower and American
finance? If so, where is it going to come from?
(Mr Vaz) No, it is not the intention to replace it. It is the
intention to work with the Americans who are our partners and allies in NATO.
If you look at the Petersburg tasks, Mr Wilshire, you will know that they set
out in effect a limited set of goals - crisis management, peace-keeping,
humanitarian issues. This is not, as some would have it be, such as the
Shadow Defence Secretary, an attempt to undermine NATO or the Americans. This
is something that Europe needs to be doing. As the Prime Minister has said,
this is Europe's backyard. It is important that we have the capability of
achieving what we wish to achieve. Indeed, what happened in Kosovo is an
example of why we should be working together so that we can produce the
ability of the European Union working with NATO to deal with those crucial
tasks.
140. So if I understand you correctly, we are going to still use
these American facilities, we are going to construct through this IGC a
defence initiative which will take decisions, commit forces and then call on
the Americans to pay for it, provide the manpower and provide the weapons for
it. Is that what you are suggesting?
(Mr Vaz) I think that is a rather sad summary of what I was
suggesting.
Mr Wilshire: I think that is what I heard you say and the record will
confirm it.
Chairman
141. We will move on. Let me round up the subject of defence in
this way. There were two views, as you know, Minister, in relation to the
chairmanship of the relevant committee, the political and security committee.
Some argue that there should be continuity in one person - perhaps Mr Solana
should chair it for several sessions - and others say it should be according
to the normal rotation. Where do the British come in on this?
(Mr Lyall Grant) I am afraid this is not directly my area of
responsibility and we shall write to you.
Mr Wilshire: An Exocet has been taken.
Dr Starkey
142. Can I just clarify that there may be some tasks that the
Americans would not wish to be involved in. It is precisely those
circumstances the ESDIC envisage.
(Mr Vaz) It is not a question, Dr Starkey, of the Americans not
wishing to be involved. The Americans are our allies in NATO, they work with
us in order to ensure that defence and security policy works. It is a
question of the European Union countries being able to have the capability of
dealing with these crises situations themselves. This is not an exclusive
issue. We will work with NATO and through NATO. This will improve NATO's
ability to deal with these issues. The fact is that a number of these
countries, if they are not members of the European Union, are members of NATO.
These are all countries that are able to be in communication with each other,
are able to work together in order to achieve these ends. What we are putting
in place now is the structures. This is early days, we are putting together
the structures, we are ensuring that we know where these committees are to be
housed and we are trying to work out a scheme which will ensure that nobody
could be under any misapprehension that what we are trying to do is to work
with our allies. It is not something that Europe wants to do on its own, this
is something that we will always do through NATO.
143. Of course we would not wish to do something which America did
not support or did not think was a good idea but we might have the capability
in some circumstances, clearly not something as large as Kosovo which required
a particularly large force, we might be in a position where Europe could
commit forces without necessarily calling upon American forces, even if the
Americans were supporting the policy initiative?
(Mr Vaz) The Prime Minister wants to do what colleagues on the
European Council want to do, to make sure that we are able to fulfil the
Petersberg tasks and that means individual Member States need to have the
capability of putting together their forces, not a European army as some would
envisage and some think we want but individual forces being deployed together
in order to fulfil that aim. That does not exclude the involvement of NATO
and the Americans.
Sir David Madel
144. We are really anticipating this scenario that through
America's democratic system, through congress, through the senate, through the
President, that the Americans may well say in the future, as a crisis
develops, "You handle that. You get on with it. Do not expect us to do
everything. That is one we, the Americans, think you can do" and we want to
be able to say to the Americans "Yes, we can do it".
(Mr Vaz) Sir David, there is no question of us wishing to go on in any
direction that does not involve consultation with NATO and working with the
Americans. This is a myth that has developed partly because the Shadow Defence
Minister went to Washington and made statements which seemed to indicate that
we were on a different path. I too have been to Washington and the feedback
that I got from senior American officials on the Hill in the administration
is that they welcome what the European Union has done but what they want to
do is to keep in touch, to make sure that when decisions are made we make
these decisions jointly. That is the position. It may or may not include
American forces being used.
145. I am not for a minute suggesting we would go off and do it
without even consulting the Americans, I am just looking at it from the other
side of the Atlantic, the Americans are going to say, are they not, "that
crisis has arisen, you deal with that one"?
(Mr Vaz) They may say that but the fact is when you are dealing with
allies you need to work with your allies. As the Prime Minister has said, and
the other leaders have said, we need to be able to look after our own back
yard where necessary. That does not mean excluding NATO, it means working
with NATO.
Chairman
146. Minister, perhaps we were reassured by things like the Strobe
Talbott speech last autumn who might have feared that we were disengaging
decoupling. We used the phrase that the United States has the first refusal.
Is that a formula which is accepted by our other allies, including France, in
respect of this project?
(Mr Vaz) There are views from different Member States on the use of
those precise terms. We though are in no doubt that when we do anything in
Security and Defence Policy it is with the agreement of NATO and, therefore,
our American allies being part of NATO are part of that process.
Sir John Stanley
147. I think I just would put this to you, Minister. We, like
you, have been in Washington. We were in Washington last week and were you
not told, as we were told on the Hill in the most unequivocal terms, that the
basis of the Americans being prepared to go along with this new EU involvement
in defence is the belief that this is going to be part of a significant
increase in financial responsibility for defence being taken on by the
European Union Member States and, indeed, we ran into some criticism on the
Hill that the increased defence expenditure by the EU countries had not yet
materialised. Minister, you are surely not denying that that is the basis of
American support for this particular initiative? Would you not also agree
that if that increased expenditure by the European Union countries does not
materialise there is going to be a very significant degree of disillusionment
in the American administration and in political circles in the United States?
(Mr Vaz) Sir John, you know more than anyone else on this Committee
being a former Defence Minister that there is one argument for saying do it
all yourself and we would like to be able to do that and yet others would say
where is the capability for achieving this? Our call is that Europe develops
the capability to deal with these situations. I did not sense any view that
the Americans wanted to detach themselves from what we were doing in the
European Union. They were watching what we were doing. As you did when you
went out there, I heard people say to me they were concerned to ensure that
they were going to be fully included. In the end you are absolutely right.
People will have to come up with the resources and the capability in order to
meet the headline goal. If they do not meet that headline goal then the
philosophy behind the defence and security policy will not work. I am
confident that each one of the European countries understands the need for
them to achieve those capabilities. That is why it is really important that
we should keep reiterating again and again and again, contrary to what some
people have said that we are always going to do this working with NATO and
working with our American allies.
148. So you are agreeing, from what you have just said, that what
lies behind and flows inescapably from this policy is a significant increase
in defence expenditure by the EU Member States to provide those very
capabilities to which you have referred?
(Mr Vaz) What is required is the ability to match the good words with
the capability to achieve those goods words in crisis situations which have
been set out by the Petersburg tasks.
Chairman: I am beginning to wrap up but Dr Godman, Dr Starkey and Mr
Mackinlay have some final questions.
Dr Godman
149. If this question has been asked I am sure the Chairman in his
courteous way will stop me dead in my tracks, Minister. Paragraph 25 of the
White Paper on page 21 talks about the next major task being institutional
reform and the paragraph refers to the European Commission and Council of
Ministers and European Parliament and European Court of Justice. Could I ask
a question concerning the European Court of Justice as one who has had some
experience of this. I was associated with a test case involving the payment
of invalidity benefit to people over 60 and we went all the way to Luxembourg
and we lost the case there but that is a different story. The referral of
cases to that Court in Luxembourg is a cumbersome procedure. I cannot see how
that can be improved in an enlarged Union. When you talk about reform of the
European Court of Justice, are you referring to its membership, its structure,
its modus operandi or the penalties and sanctions it can impose against the
Member States?
(Mr Vaz) I think we are thinking about quite a fundamental look at the
way the ECJ operates. Your experience, Dr Godman, is not unique. It is
established that it takes a great deal of time to get cases referred and then
to get cases through the procedure. I think the Lord Chancellor has also made
his views known on this issue. It is important that we reform the way in
which cases are dealt with at first instance and on appeal and we look at the
way in which appointments are made and we also look at rules of procedure.
That is why we are keen, and we have said this, to look at QMV as a means of
making sure that the Court becomes much more efficient. There is a tremendous
amount of delay built into the system. To quote an old clich‚, justice
delayed is justice denied. It is essential that we find a way of making the
whole system work more efficiently.
150. In a sense it is a kind of supreme court over the 15 Member
States. Is there any thought being given to an appeal court being set up in
a larger European Union?
(Mr Vaz) We are looking at the way in which cases are managed. There
is no idea before us at the moment about an overarching supreme court that
will take away any of the jurisdiction that our courts have, but there is a
good deal of work that has gone into the way in which first instance decisions
and the appeal process work. I understand your point but as far as I am aware
there is no move to try and make that a supra-national state.
Mr Mackinlay
151. You have had an opportunity, no doubt, to read our report on
Gibraltar. If you have not, you should.
(Mr Vaz) I am sure you will send me a copy.
152. What is a fact is at the IGC of 1997 there were things which
were forgotten about, the consequences on Gibraltar, it is documented. Who
is to blame is arguable but that was a fact. What mechanisms are you building
in to ensure that this time round the interests of Gibraltar are taken into
account rather than it being discovered after treaties are agreed, which was
what happened there, either by design or screw up that there is a problem?
What mechanisms are being put in to ensure you protect the interests of the
people of Gibraltar this time round?
(Mr Vaz) Mr Mackinlay, I know that you quite rightly are seen as a
champion of Gibraltar and I can give you the answer that I gave in the House.
The situation of Gibraltar, as always, is uppermost in the minds of the United
Kingdom in these matters and we will continue to ensure that the views of the
Government and the people are reflected.
Chairman
153. And learn from the mistakes in the last IGC?
(Mr Vaz) We will look at this area and make sure that if there are any
points which need to be revisited that they will be. Generally speaking, as
far as Gibraltar is concerned, we will continue ---
Mr Mackinlay
154. If the Gibraltar Government had been brought into the loop
the error would not have occurred. It is very nice of you to say these nice
things but somebody has got to speak for them. It is a question of the
mechanism to protect their interest. You might be able to decide it is not
important, there are other considerations, it is the cock-up one wants to
avoid.
(Mr Vaz) I have noted Mr Mackinlay's point.
Dr Starkey
155. My question relates to Russia's view of the accession to the
EU of the Baltic states? It has been fairly relaxed, I think, on the whole,
although they have been extremely twitchy about them joining NATO. Do you
think that what you have just said about the way in which the European Union
security and defence initiative should work so incredibly closely with NATO
is likely to increase Russia's suspicion of the Baltic States joining the
European Union?
(Mr Vaz) You are right, Dr Starkey, this has not been raised with me
by any discussions that I have had with the Russian Ambassador. As you know,
Russia now has a new President. We have received no representations which show
in any way that Russia is in any way concerned about the accession of the
Baltic States. I think that what we need to do is to be absolutely transparent
about what we are proposing to do on Defence and Security Policy and if we
continue to do that then those around the EU and those around the applicant
countries will understand that what we are not seeking to do is to in any way
threaten the security or in any other way. We are there to complete a set of
tasks which are very transparent and people are very well aware of. I have
received no representations and the Government has received no representations
from the Russians to suggest otherwise.
Chairman: Minister, we have covered a wide ground, I thank you and Mr
Lyall Grant very much on behalf of the Committee.
