---

Local Government Procurement Bill

Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to establish a national approved list of organisations that have the capability to perform local authority contracts under Best Value guidance; to make provision for companies to qualify for the approved list; to issue companies with a Certificate of Registration valid for every local authority if they meet the criteria set; to make provision to make the approved list of registered companies available to every local authority; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 145].

9 Jul 2003 : Column 1199

9 Jul 2003 : Column 1201

Convention on the Future of Europe

[Relevant documents: Twenty-Fourth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee of Session 2002–03, on The Convention on the Future of Europe and the Role of National Parliaments (HC 63-xxiv); Twenty-Sixth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee of Session 2002–03, on The Convention's proposals on criminal justice (HC 63-xxvi)]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected amendment (b) standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

2.35 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,

That this House believes that the draft Constitutional Treaty produced by the Convention on the Future of Europe is a good basis for starting in the Intergovernmental Conference; agrees that the procedures of an enlarged European Union require reform, and welcomes the commitment of the Convention to a Union which respects the national identities of its Member States and which has only those powers explicitly conferred on it by them; congratulates the UK parliamentary, government and European Parliament representatives on the Convention for their contributions, and notes the valuable work of the relevant parliamentary committees of both Houses; notes the Government's decision to table as a Command Paper Parts I, II and IV; recalls that decisions on what is included in any forthcoming Treaty will be made by unanimity by the elected governments of all EU member states; and reaffirms Parliament's role in scrutinising and approving legislation required to give effect to any future Treaty's provisions.

I first draw the House's attention to a very serious error in our motion. [Hon. Members: "Resign!"] I think that the jury is out on whether it is a resignation matter. More assiduous Members will have noted that the motion refers to the inclusion of parts I, II and IV of the Convention in the Command Paper, whereas only parts I and II were included. I own up to that. Part IV, although available, had not been finally signed off by the Convention. However, for the better information of hon. Members the Vote Office is kindly making available the existing draft part IV. I apologise to the House for the error.

I want to deal with five key questions. First, why did the European Union Heads of Government decide that a new constitution for the EU was needed and, related to that, why did they agree that there should be the two-stage process of the Convention followed by an intergovernmental conference? Secondly, what process will the IGC follow? Thirdly, what are the key elements of the draft constitutional treaty produced by the Convention? Fourthly, which of those elements will we wish to change in the negotiations at the IGC? Fifthly, how will Parliament be involved in the process of scrutiny before, during and after the IGC?

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): What about the referendum?

Mr. Straw: I shall not, of course, forget the referendum.

Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk): Is that point six?

Mr. Straw: No, I will cover it when I come to the amendment.

9 Jul 2003 : Column 1202

Before I deal with those questions, let me again record my thanks to the parliamentary Members, of all parties, of the British delegation to the Convention, and to all the staff in this House and in my Department who supported them. Our team has garnered tributes from across Europe. One of the finest tributes comes from a leading French constitutional expert, Robert Badinter, who commented in a French weekly, Le Nouvel Observateur, that

"the search for consensus allowed the side showing the firmest will to take definitive control of the game, artfully trading concessions on the inessential to make sure of winning the essential . . . to the extent that we should dub this constitution for the Europe of 25 'la Britannique.'"

[Interruption.] I invite Conservative Members to look at many other such quotations, which I am happy to place before the House, and which come from a wide range of commentaries in a wide range of journals across the European Union.

Although we have reservations, which I shall discuss later, about aspects of the draft Convention, we embarked on the exercise with a considerable programme that was clearly set out in our manifesto. We have largely succeeded in achieving our aims.

I pay tribute to the work of the Convention's President, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. I did not know him before he took on that role, but I have had the opportunity to watch him at work and my respect and admiration for him has grown greatly. Brokering a text between all the participants is an extraordinary personal achievement.

My first point was about why European Union Heads of Government decided that the Union needed a new constitution and why they agreed to a two-stage process of Convention followed by intergovernmental conference. I say "new" because a constitution for the European Union already exists. It is found in several lengthy treaties, dating back to the treaty of Rome, and each grants the Union different powers.

Mr. William Cash (Stone): Treaty.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman mutters "treaty" from a sedentary position, but he is a reasonable lawyer—

Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife): No.

Mr. Straw: His fellow lawyer from the same chambers in the Faculty of Advocates says that he is not a reasonable lawyer; I do not resort to that. However, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) should know that the Convention will be a treaty if it is given legal effect; it has no other basis. There is no difference in power between the current legal instruments, which form the constitution of the European Union, and a new constitution, except that the existing constitution is found in a plethora of treaties. Some of the treaties are contradictory and part of the constitution is called the "treaties of the European Community" and the other part is described as the "treaty of the European Union". The current constitution is therefore confusion compounded. One purpose of the Convention is to

9 Jul 2003 : Column 1203

simplify the treaties and put them into a single text. The Opposition should at least agree with us about that, if not about anything else.

Keith Vaz (Leicester, East): Will my right hon. Friend set out the Government's view on what will become of the charter of rights in the new Convention?

Mr. Straw: Let me deal briefly with that. If my hon. Friend reads not only part II, which sets out the charter of rights, but especially article II-51, he will realise that there is a severe limitation on the application of the charter. Article II-52 provides for considerable restrictions on the scope and interpretation of its rights and principles.

The provisions of the charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union; they do not extend the Union's powers. Article II-52 requires that, in the case of overlap between the charter of rights and the European convention on human rights, the interpretation of the Convention would apply. Article II-52(4) states:

"Insofar as this Charter recognises fundamental rights as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, those rights shall be interpreted in harmony with those traditions."

Those are helpful safeguards and I hope that hon. Members will continue to scrutinise them. We shall take account of any further observations by hon. Members in our negotiations at the IGC.

Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire): If, as the Foreign Secretary claims, the Convention is simply another treaty, will it be possible freely to exit it other than through the new constitution?

Mr. Straw: I did not say that it was simply another treaty. [Interruption.] It is an important treaty that has been made under international law. For the first time, there are provisions for a member state to leave the European Union, which is important. Just as people should be able to decide freely whether to join the European Union, they should have freedom to decide to leave. Such provisions should be clear and on the face of the constitution, and they are.

European Union leaders have long recognised that the current constitutional texts are a recipe for incoherence in a Union of 15. Post-enlargement, that ramshackle framework would not be up to the task of forging consensus among 25 member states. Hon. Members of all parties supported enlargement—we recognise what that means for Britain's national security and prosperity. We all want the countries of the former Soviet bloc as well as Cyprus and Malta to become part of the European family. However, in practice, agreement ends there. The Opposition fail to recognise that if we want enlargement to succeed and the former Soviet satellites to prosper, we must overhaul the Union's institutional make-up in their interests.

At Nice, European Union leaders agreed technical changes to allow for enlargement. However, even as they agreed that treaty, they recognised that further reforms would be necessary. They followed their

9 Jul 2003 : Column 1204

declaration at Nice with another, 18 months later at the Laeken summit in December 2001. They concluded that European

"citizens want . . . the EU's institutions to be more efficient and open."

They also set out a detailed mandate for the Convention on the Future of Europe. They agreed that it should examine whether the

"simplification and reorganisation of the treaties should not lead . . . to the adoption of a constitutional text in the Union"

and

"what the basic features of such a constitution might be."

As the Convention unfolded, a consensus developed, supported by the Government, on the need for such a text.

The decision to follow a two-stage process of Convention and IGC rather than IGC alone had its origins in the IGC at Nice. Intractable issues were discussed at a technical level for six months, but at a political level only in the final stages of the summit. So a summit that was planned for a relatively short time—two working days—lasted four days and nights. At the end of that exhausting and not especially happy process, Heads of Government called for a wider and more open debate to prepare the ground for the next IGC, involving "all interested parties."

---