| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Debates Procedure
35. Julie Morgan (Cardiff, North): If he will bring forward proposals to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons on procedure in debates on the Floor of the House. [128482]
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): Although I have no plans to do so, I am aware that the Procedure Committee is examining procedures for debates, and I await its findings with interest.
Julie Morgan : What plans has my right hon. Friend to discuss the introduction of a list of speakers to be published before debates in the Chamber? Does he agree that it would contribute to the enthusiasm of Members taking part in debate if they thought that they had some chance of being called?
Mr. Hain: I think, Mr. Speaker, that you may have views on this matter, and I therefore intend to tread warily. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and I know that the House of Lords, for example, has always had published lists. The Procedure Committee is considering the matter, and I am sure that you will make your views known in due course, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): One of the good things to come out of the Modernisation Committee when it was led by the Leader of the House's predecessor was the publication of a parliamentary calendar. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to publish next year's calendar?
Mr. Hain: I certainly intend to publish the calendar as soon as possible, once it is clear when the Queen's Speech will be and how the next Session will unfold. We shall do that as soon as possible, because I know that the calendar is useful to Members and to servants of the House.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): Might the Leader of the House combine several modernisation techniques so that those of us who have a nasty habit of turning up here to make speeches could in future just read them into the record from some remote spot, saving us from having to come here at all?
Mr. Hain: I would much rather hear my hon. Friend's speeches than read them in Hansard. I am sure that the whole House would agree with that.
Bills (Online Pre-legislative Scrutiny)
36. Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): How many Bills he expects will have been subject to online pre-legislative scrutiny by the end of the Session; and if he will make a statement. [128483]
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): None of the Committees that conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills in this Session has undertaken online consultation; nor am I aware of any plans to do so. However, the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Bill in the previous Session demonstrated that online consultation on draft Bills could be useful. Whether it is undertaken remains a matter for decision by the Committee concerned.
Mr. Allen : I took the trouble to write to all Secretaries of State asking whether they would hold any pre-legislative consultation in the next Session, and I
received a standard reply from each saying that they do not pre-empt the Queen's Speech. However, as a long list of Bills is being circulated, would it not make sense for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to use that list in talking to Select Committee Chairmen to try to build into their programmes of work serious pre-legislative scrutiny of all the Bills that the House will consider?
Mr. Woolas: That is a matter for the House, but the Government recognise the benefits of pre-legislative scrutiny. There have been nine such Bills in the current Session and there were seven in the last Session. It is the Government's desire to facilitate online consultation. As I said, the matter is for the Committees, but my hon. Friend's suggestion seems to have merit within that policy.
Bills (Programming)
37. Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell): If he will propose to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons that it inquire into the arrangements for programming legislation. [128484]
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The Modernisation Committee stated that it will keep the operation of programming under continuing consideration and make further recommendations as it thinks appropriate.
Mr. Mackay: Does the Leader of the House accept that the present programming is not working properly and that all too much legislation is not properly scrutinised, with large sections of Bills not even looked at by the House? That cannot be right, and there is urgent need for change by the time the next Session starts later this year.
Mr. Hain: I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's concerns and those of many of his colleagues, but I want
to put the matter into perspective. Under the previous procedure, prior to programming, large numbers of clauses were not debated or properly scrutinised, which was one of the reasons that we introduced the reform. Although I am always open to suggestions for change, and the Modernisation Committee is keeping the matter under review, we should compare realistically and accurately with what happened before, instead of trying to suggest that the whole situation is worse in respect of scrutiny. No Bill was fully scrutinised under the previous system—that is the issue.Devolution
38. Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire): If he will introduce legislation to prohibit Members for non-English seats in the House voting on matters pertaining only to England. [128485]
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): To facilitate for the House, given the lack of time, I simply say no.
Andrew Selous : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that probably nothing is more inclined to bring disharmony between the constituent nations of this United Kingdom than the passing of controversial and unpopular measures, as far as England is concerned, with the support of hon. Members who are not from England? What is he going to do about that?
Mr. Woolas: There is a fundamental disagreement. This House is sovereign and each Member of the House is equal—[Interruption.] Well, some may, in their opinion, be more equal than others. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would say to hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies that they should not be entitled to take part in legislative decisions that affect the United Kingdom as a whole, or indeed England. There is a disagreement.
EU-IGC
12.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Union's intergovernmental conference, which will begin in Rome on 4 October. Alongside this statement, I have today published a White Paper, "A New Constitutional Treaty for the European Union," in which the Government set out in more detail their approach to the IGC. The White Paper was laid before Parliament at 9.30 this morning, and copies have been made available so that hon. Members could question me on its content. In August, I published a Command Paper, 5897, which gives the full text of the draft treaty.
The origins of the IGC lie in the unfinished business of the treaty of Nice. Nice settled the simple mechanics of enlargement, but did not focus on how a Union of 25 states could then function effectively. So at the Laeken summit two years ago, EU Heads of State and Government agreed to establish a Convention on the Future of Europe with a view to both improved institutions and a single constitutional treaty.
Indeed, ever since the 1957 treaty of Rome, Europe's decision-making processes and institutions have not kept pace with the expansion of the EU's borders: for Rome's framework was designed for the six founding countries and it has been struggling ever since to cope with the demands of nine, 12 and now 15 member states. Without reform, we would be likely to see bureaucratic gridlock at 25.
It is hard to overstate the significance of the enlargement of the EU that will come to fruition next year, which will be three times greater than any previous enlargement. EU membership will be a fitting reward for the courageous steps that eight former members of the eastern bloc have taken since the fall of the Berlin wall to embrace the values of liberal democracy. In addition, the EU will be joined by two nations—Cyprus and Malta—which have long, historical links to the UK and are members of the Commonwealth.
Enlargement has been supported by successive British Governments, partly out of a sense of obligation to help correct the injustices of the cold war, but also on a pragmatic assessment of our national interest. Eight years ago, one of my distinguished predecessors, Lord Hurd of Westwell, said:
- "enlargement is not a luxury. It is a necessity if we are to build a safe and successful Europe for the 21st century."
The EU's greatest achievement has been to help to secure an absence of war among its member states. Enlargement will extend that achievement and cement the values intrinsic to peace across the continent.
Our commitment to a successful enlargement lay behind the Government's positive approach to the Convention on the Future of Europe. From the outset of the Convention, we were clear about the purpose of the new constitutional treaty. We did not want to scrap the Union's existing constitutional foundation, but that is however contained in a plethora of documents, from the treaty of Rome to the treaty of Nice. What we wanted instead was a text that brought those treaties together in a single, more coherent whole. We also wanted a treaty that streamlined decision making to ensure that the Union was able to act effectively with 25 members, and we wanted reforms that would enable the Union to deal with the problems of today, rather than those of 50 years ago, and to ensure that the Union delivers for Europe's peoples.
The text that the Convention finally agreed in July largely meets those criteria and Britain's interests, as has been widely acknowledged elsewhere in Europe. The Convention, skilfully chaired by President Giscard d'Estaing, has produced a text that is clearer and more comprehensible, but does not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the member states and the Union. Let me express my gratitude to all Convention members, including our own governmental team, led by the Leader of the House, the parliamentary representatives from both Houses and staff of the House and the other place who did so much to support our parliamentary representatives.
What I have sought to do in the White Paper is to set enlargement and the new constitutional treaty in its proper context. So in section I of the White Paper, we set out the benefits of EU membership to Britain. Section II deals with changes that have taken place in Europe. Section III explains the process of both the Convention and the IGC, and section IV sets out the Government's assessment of the Convention's outcome.
Let me summarise our major conclusions. We welcome the fact that the draft brings a sense of order to the EU's hitherto byzantine constitutional structure. It consolidates the Union's existing treaties in a single, logically ordered text, which replaces the Maastricht treaty's elaborate three pillars with a single treaty structure. It streamlines the number of EU legal instruments. As someone who has studied the draft with care, I do not pretend that it is an easy read, but it is a lot better than the texts that have gone before.
The draft treaty provides for more accountable EU institutions, rooted in the legitimacy of its constituent parts—the nation states. For the first time, we have a clear definition of where the Union can and cannot act. The text makes it crystal clear, in article IX, that the EU's powers derive from the member states and that any power not explicitly conferred on the Union by the member states remains with the national Governments. That article then goes on to establish new procedures for giving national Parliaments an effective role in policing the Commission's legislative proposals.
Under the draft, contained in article III-160 and a protocol, all such proposals from the Commission have to be scrutinised by national Parliaments for proportionality and subsidiarity, and where the national Parliament objects, the Commission has to take back the proposal for review. That significantly strengthens the powers of national Parliaments. The House will wish
to know that the House of Lords European Union Committee, having examined the proposals in draft, concluded that
- "it is clear that the balance of power in the European Union is going to shift from the Commission in favour of the Member States if the"
- "proposals . . . are adopted".
The White Paper spells out our position on the charter of fundamental rights. The Convention text makes it clear in article II-51 that the charter
- "does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined in the other Parts of the Constitution."
Like most other member states, we have reservations about some aspects of the Convention's draft. There are elements in the text that the United Kingdom does not support. There are some areas where the Convention was unable to finalise its proposals, and others that require further technical and legal work.
In the IGC, we will not support proposals to extend the principle of qualified majority voting to certain key policy areas. We will insist that unanimity remains for treaty change and in other areas of vital national interest such as tax, social security, defence, key areas of criminal procedural law and the system of own resources. Unanimity must remain the general rule for common foreign and security policy, as proposed in the final Convention text. We will not sign up to any treaty that does not, in our view, advance Britain's national interest.
Other member states have their own concerns about the Convention's text. At the European summit in June, EU Heads of State and Governments said that the Convention's draft was a good basis for starting in the IGC, but that it would obviously be for the IGC to make the final decisions. At a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers last weekend, it was clear that many of my counterparts wanted to raise their reservations once the IGC negotiation was under way.
Let me deal with the question of a referendum. In practice, in the United Kingdom, we have held referendums when creating or joining a new institution, but not on reforming an existing institution of which we are already a member. So, it was right for there to be a referendum on whether to stay in or leave the EU, and that will be right on whether to replace the pound sterling with the euro. Equally, the previous
Government were right to resist referendums on the major constitutional treaty changes in the Single European Act 1986 and the 1992 Maastricht treaty. Moreover, the proposals in the current draft treaty do not change the fundamental relationship between the EU and its member states, and on any analysis they involve less change than the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act. The Government have therefore concluded that the right place to decide on any outcome of the IGC is here in this House and this Parliament.It is for that reason that we have sought to involve Parliament in the drafting and scrutiny of the process from the outset. Our delegation to the Convention gave regular progress reports to the specially constituted Standing Committee on the Convention. These have been invaluable and it goes without saying that we would welcome further proposals from both Houses and their Committees on the draft text and our negotiating position. Ministers have been held to account by the European Scrutiny Committee here and the European Union Committee in the other place. The European Scrutiny Committee has already produced three reports, and the House of Lords Committee has produced 14.
As I have already mentioned, I published the draft treaty articles in a Command Paper. Following consultations with, and proposals from, the European Scrutiny Committee, the House will wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tabled a Standing Order today, which appears on the Order Paper, to establish a Standing Committee of this House on the IGC. This will be closely modelled on the Standing Committee on the Convention, except that it will hear statements and take questions from Ministers rather than House parliamentary representatives, as the Standing Committee did when the Convention was operating.
Following a very helpful proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), we are supplementing the parliamentary processes on the IGC with an online public debate. My Department has opened an internet discussion forum—[Interruption.] Well, at Question Time there was concern that we should make such issues more accessible and members of the public will be given an opportunity to express their views on the draft treaty.
It would be rash to predict the ultimate outcome of the IGC. There will inevitably be many twists and turns in a negotiation between 25 countries. Neither am I making any assumptions about the IGC's duration. What matters is that we secure the right text for the United Kingdom and for the EU as a whole. Securing that outcome flows not from seeking isolation within the European Union but from active and positive engagement. There is no need to approach this IGC with the defeatism of the kind that we sometimes hear. We approach it instead with a confident sense that Britain's rightful role is to play an active part in shaping the future of Europe in the interests of the British people. That has been the hallmark of the Government's policy on the European Union since 1997. By working with our European partners, we are ensuring that our vision of Europe—a vision of nation states, proud of their heritage and distinctiveness, working together for the greater peace and prosperity of the continent—guides Europe's future.
Britain's membership of the European Union is vital for our continued prosperity. To turn our backs on the Union at this historic time of an enlarged Europe would not only betray our national interest but mark a profound lack of confidence in Britain and everything we stand for. I commend the White Paper to the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |