---

Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore): The right hon. Gentleman displayed his prowess in the French language earlier, and I confess that I am not so competent in it. He will undoubtedly have been reading Le Monde, Le Figaro and other European journals, and they have praised the skills of the UK negotiating team, because it has won the best deal not only for Europe, but for Britain. If that had happened under a Conservative Government, the right hon. Gentleman would have been singing its praises to the highest heaven.

Mr. Ancram: Indeed, I join Le Monde in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) for the work that they have done in the Convention, but I would not take French newspapers as a judge of whether British interests had been best served. In fact, I would be concerned if they thought that I had been acting in the best interests of Britain. Knowing the way in which French newspapers operate, I would sup with them with a very long spoon.

Mr. Bryant rose—

Mr. Ancram: I always like to give way once to the hon. Gentleman, but I always know what question he will ask, and I shall give the same answer as I usually do.

Mr. Bryant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am troubled that he admits that he always gives the same reply, whatever the question might be.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman always asks the same question.

Mr. Bryant: I have a specific question that relates to the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the

18 Jun 2003 : Column 406

primacy of the Convention constitution over the constitutions of Europe. Does he accept that that applies only in certain competences, such as the regulation of state aid and competition, for which it is essential that the EU has primacy? Indeed, it has had such primacy for a long time, as originally agreed by a Conservative Government.

Mr. Ancram: The Foreign Secretary, when he read out what was said this morning about constitutions, suggested that the Convention constitution would not have an effect over other constitutions. What the hon. Gentleman has just said disproves that. Words must mean something, and I shall read out the words in the constitution again. It states:

"The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union and institutions in exercising competencies conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States."

The Foreign Secretary was denying that primacy, but it is written into the constitution.

Mr. Straw: How, in substance, does that differ from what has been in the treaties since the treaty of Rome and what is encapsulated in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972?

Mr. Ancram: I am sorry to have to repeat myself, but we must look at the totality of what is being proposed.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ancram: Before I give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I must make it clear that he and I know, from our experience as lawyers, about circumstantial evidence. We have told juries to look at the evidence as a whole because it might not amount to anything if each bit is looked at separately. We know that putting all the evidence together reveals what it can achieve. That is when one sees the reality.

Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the words used must be given a plain meaning. In his view, what is the plain meaning to be ascribed to the phrase

"in exercising competencies conferred upon it"?

Mr. Ancram: The plain meaning is that in those competencies, which are very wide, there is a primacy over the laws of the member states. That is absolutely clear.

Mr. Straw: I must press the right hon. Gentleman on that. Of course, he is right that the whole is often greater than the sum of the parts. We all know that, but I am making a specific point about the particular text that he has read out. What, in substance, does the new text produce by way of change, compared with the provision that has been in our law and in the treaties since section 2(2) of the 1972 Act came into force? That Act makes it equally clear that, in respect of legal instruments exercised at a Union level under EU competencies, Union law overrides the domestic law of Britain or any other member state. What is the difference?

Mr. Ancram: My argument—which I shall continue with—is that it is important to look at the totality. If it

18 Jun 2003 : Column 407

is accepted that, where there are competencies, the constitution shall have primacy over the law of the member states, then we must look at what will happen with those competencies in the future. We must determine what the effect of that provision will be, and how much wider and broader those competencies will become. That is why we must look at the whole, as I said earlier, but I am prepared to look at some of the details.

I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, who published a compelling analysis of the proposed constitution two days ago. Most of us will be grateful to him for having clarified some of the issues that have been the subject of rather muddy debate in this Chamber on previous occasions. He identified some areas of concern that I want to explore.

The constitution endows the EU with a legal personality. For the first time, the EU becomes an autonomous entity in relation to the member states, with the ability to conclude international agreements by itself. We have a constitution that has primacy over the laws of member states.

Mr. Straw: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the EU has a legal personality at the moment? That is what has enabled it to agree all sorts of treaties internationally.

Mr. Ancram: It has done so in respect of trade, but—[Interruption.] This is where I think that the Foreign Secretary is trying to create a false debate. We are looking at what the constitution, if it ends up in the treaty, will confer on the EU, with a view to determining what its total effect will be. We are looking not at the small changes that it may make in some respects to the position as it was in the past, but at what the overall effect will be. I challenge the Foreign Secretary to say that the changes are not fundamental and significant in their totality. That is the argument that he seeks to make.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ancram: I am going to make some progress, if I may.

I turn now to the new powers. The list of EU powers is to be expanded. Formerly, only the customs union was an explicitly EU power, but now there are four. Amazingly, the conservation of marine biological resources is one of them. Where is the rationale for that? Under the EU, the common fisheries policy has been a disaster. Our seas have been emptied of fish and many of our fishing communities have been sent to the wall. Surely we should be working to retrieve our fishing waters from the EU, rather than entrenching them within it?

I turn now to the new areas in which member states cannot legislate if the EU chooses to do so. These are the areas of shared competence—that is,

"where the Union has not exercised or ceases to exercise its competence in the area of shared competence, the Member States may exercise theirs."

18 Jun 2003 : Column 408

If one turns that around to get away from the Euro-speak, that means that, where the EU has exercised its competence, the member states cannot. The shared competencies include justice and home affairs, transport, agriculture and fisheries, trans-European networks, energy, social policy, economic and social cohesion, the environment, and consumer protection. Those areas are now open-ended.

Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ancram: I will give way in a moment, but I want to deal with the co-ordination of economic and employment policies. Article II-3 states:

"the Union shall have competence to promote and coordinate the economic and employment policies of the Member States."

I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary—or perhaps even the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston—will be able to tell me what that means. As I understand it, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), when he was Minister for Europe, tried to have the clause about the co-ordination of economic and employment policies deleted. I wonder whether it is still a red line for the Government.

Ms Stuart: Given the right hon. Gentleman's concerns about shared competencies, which will be defined clearly in part 3 of the constitution, does he welcome article II-2, which for the first time provides that, when the EU ceases to exercise its competence in respect of shared competencies, those competencies can be exercised by the nation states?

Mr. Ancram: I welcome, as small crumbs from the table, any demonstration that there are movements back from the centre towards the nation states. However, I come back to the totality of what is being put forward. I hope that someone on the Government Front Bench will be able to answer my question about the co-ordination of economic and employment policies, as I believe that it is a key matter when it comes to looking at the totality of the proposals.

---