Examination of Witness(Questions 40-59)
RT HON PETER
HAIN, MR
NICK BAIRD
AND MS
SARAH LYONS
WEDNESDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2002
40. Does it confirm my colleague Mr Cash's point
that perhaps Mr Straw's articles and speeches could be interpreted
in different ways?
(Peter Hain) No, a speech is a speech and an article
in The Economist is exactly that and has to conform to
the editorial requirements which are appropriate whereas a draft
constitution is something that lawyers have to do and is an altogether
different kettle of fish.
Mr David
41. Minister, on the Dashwood text, I read it
with great interest and as you say in some aspects it does build
on and reflect Government thinking. One of the main proposals
in the Dashwood text is the suggestion that the first and the
third pillar should be merged. I think you indicated slightly
earlier that the Government was against that. Is the Government
implacably opposed to that suggestion or do you think there is
room for discussion on the broad area?
(Peter Hain) The three pillars of the European Union
are pretty unfathomable for most people, frankly, with all humility
I would say, including most Members of Parliament, indeed probably
to me until I became the Minister for Europe. We are not saying
that should be set in concrete. What must be set in concrete is
the principle that there are certain matters which are matters
for Community action, which are communitised and the Community
is in the lead and the European Parliament is in the lead and
the other matters for Member States and the governments through
the European Council, foreign policy and security policy being
a candidate firmly in the camp of governments and the European
Council. We have agreed already in the third pillar, affecting
justice and home affairs, to areas like asylum policy and anti-terrorism
policy and fighting crime moving out of the third pillar, ceasing
in other words to be an inter-governmental matter and becoming
a Community matter. It leaves still areas which are quite important
like criminal law, the way our judicial system works, as being
matters for nation states. If we get rid of the pillar concept—and
I am not saying yes or no to that until I see what it means—we
can only agree to do so if we can keep certain justice and home
affairs areas boxed off as inter-governmental matters along with
Common Foreign and Security Policy so that is the way we are approaching
it.
Chairman
42. Minister, I want to move on now to discuss
the question concerning the exit clause but before I do I wonder
if you would clear up a point on national parliament scrutiny,
a point which I do not think was put to you. How could the Council
implement the proposal of the working group on national parliaments
to give scrutiny reserves a clearer status within the Council's
rules of procedure? Will the Government be making any specific
proposals on that?
(Peter Hain) What we have at the moment is a principle
which we endorsed from the working group, the actual practical
implementation of it is still a matter for discussion and for
agreement. Your guidance on that will be welcome as soon as you
are able to give it.
43. Exit clause, Minister. What is the Government's
view of the secession clause proposed in Giscard d'Estaing's draft
constitution?
(Peter Hain) We saw it for the first time as we did
other ideas in the skeleton draft constitution which he put forward
and we are having a look at it. It may be a good idea that Members
States which are so fed up with the European Union are able to
remove themselves from it. We need to look at the detail, we need
to know exactly what it means.
44. The former French President made an interesting
comment also in an interview when he said if a Member State did
not vote to ratify the new constitutional treaty it would no longer
be a Member of the European Union. What is the Government's response
to that?
(Peter Hain) President Giscard is a very creative
fellow and he comes up with lots of interesting ideas and this
is one of them.
45. One I assume which is not shared by the
British Government?
(Peter Hain) No.
Mr Steen
46. This exit clause, is there acceptance, agreement,
enthusiasm for some sort of exit arrangement including those countries
which are part of the euro? Has it been canvassed seriously?
(Peter Hain) No, it has not, to be absolutely frank
with you. It was an idea we saw first when the draft was published.
Nobody has mentioned it in the Convention, either before or since.
Chairman: I want to move on to third pillar
and legal personality for the EU. Mr David.
Mr David
47. I was going to ask a question of the Minister
with him wearing both hats, if you like, because I want to ask
a question about the role of regions and small nations. I want
to ask whether or not the Government has given any thought to
how regions might be involved in future European architecture
and whether he intends to put any ideas to the Convention when
he is holding a discussion on the role of the regions?
(Peter Hain) This is an important matter and it has
not been easy to arrive at a settled position. The Secretary of
State for Scotland with my agreement as Minister for Europe has
established a working group with the devolved administrations
to see whether there is a consensus in this area and in due course
we will see whether there is. I think there are a number of principles
that we can set out. One principle being advanced by some regions
of Europe is an automatic right of access by regional institutions
to the European Court of Justice and we are not keen on that and
nor for that matter are the Scottish Executive or the Welsh Cabinet.
They are not interested in that idea. I think everybody recognises
that European regions—which as I say includes nations—are
playing a more and more important part in the new Europe and we
need to try and look ahead to see what future role might be played.
Companies increasingly decide not just to say invest in Britain
but to invest in a particular region of Britain compared with
a particular region of Germany or France according to the competitiveness
and the opportunities there. Likewise as the world has got more
global there is a growing assertion of local and regional identity
and Europe needs to reflect that. Now whether that is achieved
through giving a greater role to the Committee of the Regions
is certainly one matter under consideration but if your Committee,
Chairman, has any thoughts on that I would be interested. The
Committee of the Regions has not been very influential. There
is an oddity about it, also, that it contains both local authorities
and European regions. I think it is important local government
retains its influence into the European Union in its own right
but whether that should always be the case that they sit together
in the same body with the regions assuming much greater importance
is an issue to be discussed.
Mr Robertson
48. Secretary of State, you say the issue of
the role of rights of regions and stateless nations is a very
important matter, to use your words. I went through the record
of your contributions in the European Convention where you have
made six separate contributions. In plenary, contributions amount
to nearly 3,000 words, 2,869 to be exact. I note that for such
an important matter Wales has only ever warranted one mention
where you said "Women and men in shopping centre, pubs and
clubs of my Neath constitution in South Wales". Scotland
did not even receive a single measure in any of your contributions.
(Peter Hain) I am not a Member of Parliament for Scotland.
49. On the one hand you say it is an important
matter but on the other hand you have made absolutely no mention
of it whatsoever. How can you square those positions?
(Peter Hain) I do not know whether your very diligent
researchers—I must say I am sure it is good for you reading
my speeches—might have missed the fact that I was one of
the few voices calling for a working group on the role of regions,
in fact I think that was a month or two ago. I did not win that
argument but certainly the representatives of the Committee of
the Regions and others—parliamentarians and so on—were
very supportive of my position so really I do not think that is
fair. To be frank, the regions of Europe have not formed a common
view either in a UK context yet, though I guess they will do soon,
or across the board, that we have been able to engage with. My
position has been it is not for me to determine what their role
should be, I would like to hear from them first. We have not heard
from them very clearly in a common position. If and when we do,
clearly I will want to debate that and engage with them very seriously.
I really do not think you are making a serious point there.
50. You are not aware that there is already
a common position by the European Regions, which is chaired by
the First Minister of Scotland, Jack McConnell, and that organisation's
position is specifically for representation of sub-state legislatures
on the European Court of Justice. It is a very clear position.
(Peter Hain) It is not all regions of the European
Union, first of all, and it has not been submitted formally to
the Convention as an agenda item. When it does then along with
issues like legal personality and the role of national parliaments
and Common Foreign and Security Policy and competencies of the
European Union it is a very important issue and obviously we will
tackle that when we get to it. I guess we will get to it sooner
rather than later because in January we will be discussing the
different institutions of the European Union and it may well be
that will be an important dimension.
Chairman
51. Secretary of State, we recommended in our
report that the words "ever closer Union" should be
removed from treaties. Will the Government pledge further removal
from the treaties of the phrase "ever closer Union"
and, if so, would they expect to find support in the Convention
from other EU governments for this?
(Peter Hain) Actually the working group chaired by
the former Danish Commissioner, Henning Christophersen, specifically
recommended that this come out and that the words "ever closer
Union" were omitted from any new constitutional dispensation.
That is something which had very wide support in that working
group, we supported it. It has not been endorsed yet by the Convention.
We will keep pressing for that to be part of the final picture.
Miss McIntosh
52. The full expression was "ever closer
Union of the peoples of Europe", we seem to be no closer
to a people's Europe and if anything Europe is a big switch off.
Is there anything at all that you see in the Convention that will
help to reconnect that to the people of Europe?
(Peter Hain) Yes, for example, giving national parliamentarians
a greater role, their first ever role in practical terms in subsidiarity.
That is a very practical example. I think that will be reassuring
to our constituents. I think, too, the feeling that there should
be a simplified constitutional framework built around Member States,
that view would be reassuring. If our ideas on reforming the European
Council carried the day, and they have considerable support, in
the way I described earlier, I think that will make an easier
chain of accountability and add a clarity to the link between
the citizens and the institution. I agree with you that the gap
has got far too large and it is one of the problems which we are
grappling with.
Mr Cunningham
53. You have used the word "disconnection".
Just a comment on the Committee of the Regions, the Committee
of the Regions has not even reached a level of disconnection;
it has never been connected in the first place. It is an organisation
and an institution which if you walked outside I doubt you would
find anyone who had ever heard of it. What can be done to either
re-organise it or, in my view, replace it?
(Peter Hain) Without repeating what I said earlier,
I would like to see what our own devolved administrations, in
discussion with me wearing my Secretary of State for Wales' hat,
and the Secretary of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland,
come up with, as well as the regions of Europe coming together,
as the Honourable Member said, chaired by the Scottish First Minister
who himself has put forward some interesting ideas for which I
have a lot of sympathy, including, by the way, barring an automatic
channel into the European Court of Justice, which he does not
favour, and I agree with him on that.
Mr Cash
54. Mr Hain, in your deepest thoughts on this
subject and I do recognise very well, even from what we have heard
today, that you have been thinking very carefully about these
matters and you have been striving, I would not like to use the
word struggling, to reconcile the broad landscape of what this
is all about with some very, very difficult problems and with
some very serious pressures that are being brought to bear from
other countries within the European Union and the international
context, and I do recognise that. Do you not really agree that
this question of disconnection which is reflected in low turnouts,
which is reflected in the continuation of maintaining essentially
undemocratic arrangements within the European community, the role
of the European Commission, the lack of scrutiny, is in effect
in total an undemocratic system and that what you are really seeking
to do at the heart of this is to endorse an undemocratic system
because you are having to deal with these competing forces, where
you are likely to fail?
(Peter Hain) No, I do not agree with that. I do not
agree that the European Union is an undemocratic institution.
I think it needs further democratisation, it needs reform, it
needs improvement and that is what our proposals are designed
to achieve. You point to low turnouts and I do not think we should
be too complacent about low turnouts. In our own democratic structures
at local government level, at devolved administration level, or
indeed national parliamentary level, yes, low turnout was very
worrying in 1999 but we have had lower turnouts than that across
the picture in our domestic elections so let's not crow about
this. Can I just make a point and it is said in a comradely fashion,
if I could, if that is a New Labour enough phrase —
55. Is this New Labour?
(Peter Hain) Can I say this: I think we should have
more self-confidence about our ideas. The Honourable Member adopts
a position of a cowering lack of self-confidence.
56. I think that is outrageous, Chairman, when
I have fought probably as hard as anybody if nor more than any
other for the democratic institutions at Westminster. It is an
amazing statement, if I may say so, and even my colleagues would
agree with that.
(Peter Hain) This is said in a comradely fashion.
I am not seeking to impugn the Honourable Member's role, I am
just saying his stance on Europe suffers from a tremendous inferiority
complex.
57. It does not, it is quite the opposite, it
says let us have a democratic system and let us make sure that
we deliver it. Everything you have said today demonstrates the
fact that what you are actually doing is giving way to those other
pressures which are actually making the system less democratic
and not more.
(Peter Hain) On the contrary, why I think the stance
he adopts suffers from an inferiority complex is there is always
a supposition that fiendish foreigners across the Channel are
about to do us over or pull one on us. Actually if you look at
what we have achieved so far in the Convention and if you look
at our record in the European Union over the last five, and we
are now in our sixth, year of government, it is a British agenda
which is hugely influential in Europe. It is a British agenda
that pushed forward enlargement of the European Union, it is a
British agenda that pushed forward the creation of a European
security and defence capability, it is a British agenda which
the promoted economic reform of Europe through the Lisbon process
to make it more competitive, and it is a British agenda which
is creating a European Union, which is really the dominant view
of this Convention, that is a partnership of sovereign states.
58. But you are not doing that, Mr Hain.
(Peter Hain) When you say the European Union is undemocratic,
I have given you two examples on the Charter and on subsidiarity
where, in fact, we have made major advances. The jury is still
out as to where we will get in the end. Let us approach this in
a spirit of confidence. You mention that the European Commission
is undemocratic. The European Commission is the body that enforced
the lifting of the beef ban.
59. Including the fine?
(Peter Hain) It required France to comply with the
lifting of the beef ban.
|
