Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-
19)
WEDNESDAY 10 SEPTEMBER
2003
RT HON
JACK STRAW,
MR KIM
DARROCH AND
MR TOM
DREW
Q1 Chairman: Foreign Secretary, welcome
to the European Scrutiny Committee. I understand that you were
thinking this was your first appearance in front of our Committee
and, indeed, it is. It is the first time we have had the Foreign
Secretary in front of our Committee. I am sure we are both looking
forward to it. This particular meeting is to discuss the very
important issue of the pending IGC on the Convention proposals.
Could I kick off by asking the question, how much room for manoeuvre
will there be at the IGC to make changes in the draft Treaty,
given the pressure from many quarters to keep the text largely
as it is?
Mr Straw: I think there will be
significant potential for manoeuvre. Of course I am aware of some
comments that have been made by some representatives of Member
States, but the key text was what was agreed at the Thessaloniki
Summit at the end of June which said that the Convention proposals
were a good basis for starting the IGC. That is our rubric, it
is a very satisfactory form of wording, and I was involved in
the wording. It is a good basis for starting and it remains to
be seen where we finish. The second point is that there was an
informal but important meeting of European foreign ministers at
the weekend in northern Italy and we spent a significant part
of the Friday and Saturday discussing our opening positions on
the IGC and the arrangements for negotiation within it. It was
very apparent from listening to all the contributions around the
room that almost every Member State had issues which they regarded
as important to them which were different from that proposed in
the Convention text. What we now have to do, obviously, is to
try and ensure that these different positions are brought together
in a manner which is satisfactory to the British negotiating position.
Will there be a proper negotiation of the IGC? Yes.
Q2 Mr Cash: Foreign Secretary, the
borderline for governments between misunderstanding, misrepresentation
and straightforward lying is often a pretty thin one in important
matters. I am very concerned about some of the points that have
emerged in the last 48 hours or so in this White Paper. The White
Paper says: "The Constitution will cover the way we govern
ourselves" and it also further goes on to say—
Mr Straw: Which paragraph is this?
Q3 Mr Cash: This is at the beginning.
I am quoting exactly: "The Constitution will cover the way
we govern ourselves." It also goes on to say, which I think
contradicts that: "The Treaty will not change the fundamental
relationship between the EU and the Member States". Today
at Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister said that there
will be no change in the fundamental nature of our constitution
but Mr Hain, the Leader of the House, presumably on good authority,
said that the Prime Minister believes the new Constitution is
absolutely fundamental, more important than Iraq. In Warsaw, in
May this year, the Prime Minister said that the euro was of such
economic and constitutional significance that a referendum would
be sensible and right. The degree of contradiction in all of this
is pretty severe. What I would like to ask you is this: if British
entry to the euro, according to the Prime Minister at Warsaw,
is constitutionally significant, how is it that the European Constitution,
which includes the euro, is not constitutionally significant?
How, therefore, is it possible for the Government to escape the
logic of the situation to give the British people a referendum,
which is what they obviously want, and how can you justify not
giving it to them?
Mr Straw: First of all, I wholly
refute your opening statement, let me make that clear. I think
that political debate on all sides is debased if we start from
the position that we are acting in a dishonourable way or not
seeking to tell the truth. I am not going into the reason why
this has come, I suspect that responsibility for this lies with
more than one party. Let us work on the basis that we have democratic
government and the currency of political debate, which is words
and figures, means something to us and to the people that we are
talking to. What I have sought to do in this White Paper is to
spell out what the effect of this Constitutional Treaty would
be, where our red lines are, where our points of disagreement
are which are not red lines, but also to put it in the context
of why we judge on balance that a Constitutional Treaty of this
kind is a good thing, and the reason for that is because of enlargement.
I have not got the exact words before me that you were quoting,
you were not able to give me the exact reference, but of course
it is true that European law has primacy over British law, as
it does over the law of any other Member State. That, as I was
explaining through Mr Speaker to you yesterday, Mr Cash, has been
a sine qua non of our membership of the European Union
since its inception. Just so we can clear this one up, it is not
only a matter of what is in our own national legislation, Article
2.2 of the 1972 European Communities Act, but in two key European
Court of Justice cases, one in 1964 called Costa v Enel
and another key one in 1978 called the Simmenthal case—
Q4 Mr Cash: 1964, I think, Costa.
Mr Straw: Yes. I thought probably
that your legal expertise would come before your politics.
Q5 Mr Cash: I am trying to weave
them together.
Mr Straw: And that is a compliment,
as it is, I hope, in respect of all of us who are lawyers. Both
cases, one building on the other, held very clearly that EU law
has primacy over national law, so of course what is in this Constitutional
Treaty affects the constitutional arrangements for this country
as long as we remain members of the European Union. One of the
things which I did not talk about yesterday, which relates to
this Treaty, is that there is a provision, extensive provision,
in this Treaty for a Member State to withdraw from the European
Union. I suspect that your party is moving towards that and one
of the many benefits in this Treaty is that we are making arrangements
by which you could effect that without having to do it outside
of the Treaty. On the issue of the referendum, again we have been
round the houses on this, but as we say in the White Paper and
I said in the House yesterday, we have had referendums in this
country where there is a decision to be made about whether we
join a new institution or withdraw from an existing institution.
The only national referendum we have ever had was the one in 1975
as to whether or not we withdrew from the European Union. It does
not seem to me that there is any argument that whatever side of
the argument people take over the merits of the euro, exchanging
our national currency for a European currency is a matter of very
great institutional significance, it is something which is plainly
new and, therefore, referendum is appropriate.
Q6 Mr Cash: It is about how we govern
ourselves, which is what your White Paper says.
Mr Straw: If we come to this Treaty,
we do not believe, and I am happy to explain why and I have yet
to hear the arguments the other way, that this involves fundamental
change in the nature of the relationship between Member States
and the European Union except, interestingly, in the judgment
of a Committee of the House of Lords that it shifts the balance
of power back from the Commission to Member States, and that is
certainly not a case for having a referendum. As I said in the
House in one of the last debates in July, if it did involve such
a fundamental change so we were essentially joining what amounts
to a new institution then that would be a case for a referendum,
which it does not. On the reporting of the remarks of Mr Hain,
this is using the adjective "fundamental" in a very
different context. The outcome of the Convention, and then of
the IGC, which is what he was talking about, yes, is something
which would be fundamental but we happen to think that although
the outcome is fundamental it is nonetheless beneficial overall
to this country and does not involve any fundamental change in
the nature of the relationship between Member States and the European
Union.
Q7 Chairman: Foreign Secretary, I
understand that there is an Italian proposal which would limit
discussion at the IGC to certain key issues. Does the Government
accept the idea of a closed list of outstanding issues for the
IGC to discuss?
Mr Straw: No. The list that was
prepared by the Italian Presidency was prepared after consultation
with Member States, including direct consultation with myself—I
went to Rome two weeks ago for a full day's discussion with the
Italian Presidency—and it actually covers all the key areas
of our concern. In addition to that, it was made very clear around
the room that Member States would be free to raise any other issue
and alongside the top line issues there is work going on on every
single draft Article, not only to check it for its legal drafting
but also for its technical implications, in some cases particular
implications for one Member State which will not affect any other
and so on.
Q8 Mr Steen: Mr Straw, the implication
of your statement was that the only reason that we had a Convention
in the first place was because of enlargement and but for enlargement
we would have merrily gone along as we were. Could you just explain
what it was and what this Convention does which allows those extra
countries to come in which they could not have done, conveniently,
if we had carried along as we were going?
Mr Straw: The answer to that is
those extra countries have come in under Nice and not under this
Convention. As I said in the House yesterday, Mr Steen, if there
is not an agreed Constitutional Treaty as a result of this Convention,
life will go on. Let us be clear about that. I never, ever suggested,
because it is not true, that having this draft Treaty implemented,
ratified and enforced is a precondition for the accession of these
countries; that is plainly not the case. However, I was not at
Nice as it happens, I think Mr Darroch had that pleasure, but
everybody who was at Nice, everybody who observed Nice, recognises
that the process was unsatisfactory and that a lot of issues which
should have been resolved in anticipation of enlargement were
not. It sorted out issues of European parliamentary representation
post-enlargement in relation to the Commission and to the weighting
of votes, the so-called triple lock on QMV. It did not sort out
some of the other institutional problems. I was at Laeken and
at Laeken that led to the Laeken Declaration and the establishment
of the Convention. You asked me would the Convention have happened
without enlargement, I doubt it very much. People may have said
"We need a Convention to bring the existing treaties together"
but I do not think there would have been that impetus for it.
Take one example, the issue of rotating Presidencies, it made
every sense at six when people had a rotating presidency once
every three years, was okay at nine, when we joined, not bad at
12, difficult at 15 when it is once every seven and a half years,
but once every twelve and a half years beyond a whole generation
of ministers and politicians. What you have, and it is a point
I make to my colleagues in the smaller countries, if you stick
to the rotating Presidencies then imperceptibly power will gradually
shift more to the Commission and away from Member States because
it is the Commission which will increasingly have the expertise
and Member States not. We can run a Presidency at 25 but smaller
Member States, and some of them not so small, without naming them,
really struggle. Against what is a very professional and committed
Commission I do not believe that Member States, big or small,
are well served by rotating Presidencies and I think they would
be far better served by having a permanent Chair of the European
Council with all the authority he or she would bring, able to
co-ordinate the work of the Council, the European Council and
the Council of Ministers, working alongside the Commission but
sometimes against the Commission and reminding the Commission
that this is a union of Member States.
Q9 Mr Steen: If I can just come back
on that one point and say that our party, as you know, takes the
view that this is a major change and that a referendum is required
and you have explained to Mr Cash why that is not the case. On
the other hand, some people say it is a tidying up exercise. I
am not clear, and I think the public outside is not clear, is
it just to cope with the extra members or is there some devious
plot underneath it all which is actually going to make Europe
a different animal and Britain subservient to it?
Mr Straw: It is no devious plot.
If there was a plot here, the plotters would have chosen a different
route than to have done it in technicolour and in public for 18
months. What one sees is what is in here, it has been a very public
process. I may say that this is a far more open, transparent and
public process and one which in practice has far better involved
national parliaments than the previous arrangements where there
was a bit of work done before the IGC, then people got into conclave
and deals ended up being struck without any reference back to
national parliaments or governments at three, four, five o'clock
in the morning after everybody was completely exhausted. That
has been part of the problem with Nice. I am not saying that there
will not be an end game like that but this has been a much more
serious exercise. "Tidying up" is not a phrase that
I have used, and I do not use. There are two things happening
here. One is that this is about consolidating the existing treaties
which, as colleagues here know, are to be found in a number of
documents and some of them are very confusing. When I first got
involved in this when I was at the Home Office I started looking
at the Treaty relating to the European Community and then the
Treaty relating to the European Union. I kept being told that
JHA matters were Second Pillar and, being a lawyer, I went to
the documents to see where this Second Pillar was described but
it was not described anywhere, it turned out to be a term of art.
I eventually got the wet towel around my head and found it. One
of the things that has been happening is that this is being brought
together and, where possible, simplified. I do not make the claim
it is simple, it is just intellectually in a much more coherent
form. The other thing this is doing is reforming the institutions
in certain respects and in some respects extending QMV, which
I am sure you will want to come on to, Chairman, and doing other
things which are well laid out in the White Paper. It is a matter
of judgment as to what people feel about the whole. As I say,
I have yet to hear clear arguments as to how this involves a fundamental
shift in the balance of the relationship between ourselves and
the EU.
Q10 Chairman: You mentioned "technicolour"
and the Government has introduced colour in the debate itself
with talk about red lines, and the Prime Minister mentioned red
lines today during Prime Minister's Questions. Would it be realistic
for the UK not to accept the Treaty because one of its red lines
was crossed, or is it the case that the red line is already there
and they will not cross the red line?
Mr Straw: It would be completely
realistic, not only realistic but imperative, that we did not
accept the draft, or the final version, if it crossed our key
red lines. That is spelt out in paragraph 66 of the White Paper.
To take an area where we have already established one qualification
I am happy to go into, unanimity on defence and Common Foreign
and Security Policy, I would not ever be party to a communitisation
of foreign policy or defence policy; neither would the Prime Minister;
neither would the party I represent, full stop. I am in favour
very powerfully of the European Union being a union of nation
states. The ultimate expression of a nation state is its ability
to control its own armed forces and its armed forces are not there
in abstract, they are both for defending a country's territory
and also as an instrument of its foreign policy. I am very happy,
however, to work co-operatively with our European Union colleagues
and I believe that the development, where we agree it, of the
Common Foreign and Security Policy, defence co-operation, is very
greatly to our advantage.
Q11 Mr Bacon: Foreign Secretary,
you mentioned there paragraph 66 of the White Paper which includes
the phrase "key areas of criminal procedural law".
Mr Straw: Yes.
Q12 Mr Bacon: Does that mean that
a European Public Prosecutor is an absolute no-no, or does it
mean that there could be a European Public Prosecutor as long
as he or she had no power or if it was watered down sufficiently?
Mr Straw: We do not happen to
think there is a need for a European Public Prosecutor. I appreciate
the arguments that others make.
Q13 Mr Bacon: I am simply asking
is it a red line?
Mr Straw: If there were QMV for
European Public Prosecutor, yes. Already in the draft Treaty we
have a unanimity lock on it, a veto over a European Public Prosecutor.
We look at other ways in which we can improve that Article but
as a minimum we have what we need because we have that lock, it
is there.
Q14 Angus Robertson: Foreign Secretary,
we are talking about policies which are acceptable and unacceptable
and a moment ago you said that there were great improvements because
of the role of national parliaments being taken on board. You
will be aware that this Committee took a unanimous view that:
"We, the Committee, are concerned about the prospect of exclusive
EU competence in the conservation of marine biological resources
under the Common Fisheries Policy and how this might affect the
management of marine resources at all levels." If the Government
takes the role of national parliament seriously why was this concern
not addressed in your statement yesterday and why does it not
even figure in the Government's White Paper?
Mr Straw: Mr Robertson, you and
I have discussed this. Of course we take what Select Committees
say seriously, so do I, but that cannot mean that there is always
going to be agreement on every issue. As it happens, there is
not agreement on the issue of fact here. The point that you make,
and we have had discussions about this and I have corresponded
with you, is that you resist the idea that the conservation of
marine biological resources is currently an exclusive competence.
Now, I have tried to explain to you how it is an exclusive competence,
and it is an exclusive competence. Aggregate fisheries, other
than the conservation of marine biological resources, is a shared
competence. What this draft Constitution does is to set out in
much clearer language for the first time what are the exclusive
competences and what are the shared competences. That is what
is done in Articles 12 and 13. Because it is a fact—not
what I think, because it is a fact—this does not change
the status quo, and it is one which successive governments have
followed, we do not think there is a case for seeking to change
this in this way.
Q15 Angus Robertson: Foreign Secretary,
at a time especially when fishing communities are going through
a crisis, people in those communities cannot understand why it
is that the Common Fisheries Policy is being treated differently
from the Common Agricultural Policy. Could you explain to them
why it is that the CAP and its exclusive competences are described
as being a shared competence in the draft Constitution but
the CFP is an exclusive competence?
Mr Straw: No, with great respect,
the CFP is not an exclusive competence, this is very clear in
Article 13.2. What is an exclusive competence is the conservation
of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy,
it has long been so. Then it goes on to say under Article 13.2:
"Shared competences apply to the following principal areas:
agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine
biological resources." Chairman, it may be helpful to you
if I send to the Committee a supplementary memorandum spelling
this out. There is not a difference of opinion here, there is
a difference of what we judge as fact here.
Q16 Angus Robertson: Foreign Secretary,
moving on to institutional reform: is the Government broadly content
with the Convention's compromise proposals on reform of the EU's
institutions? In particular, does the Government agree with the
15 smaller European countries who recently called for changes
to the draft Treaty, including the return to the principle of
one Commissioner per Member State? The third part of the question:
is it in the UK's interest to prevent each Member State from having
its own Commissioner?
Mr Straw: We accept the broad
institutional framework proposed by the Convention, not least
the establishment of a Chair of the European Council and what
goes with that. The issue of the number of Commissioners is a
very sensitive one for all Member States but particularly for
the smaller Member States. So far as that is concerned, we remain
open to argument really. Have I signed up to the statement by
the 15 smaller states? No. Are we open to argument on the issue?
Yes.
Q17 Miss McIntosh: Foreign Secretary,
welcome. First of all, how many members of the Cabinet are there
at the moment?
Mr Straw: Sorry, how many members
of the Cabinet? You mean what is the total size of the Cabinet?
Twenty-three, I think.
Q18 Miss McIntosh: Would it be so
very different having a Commission from 2005-06 of 25 when it
would bend over backwards to accommodate smaller states? I have
to say I am half Danish, I studied in Denmark and I know it is
very dear to the Danes and other Baltic countries to be able to
include in their manifesto come election time that they will have
their own Commissioner. That is my first question. The second
question is that under the draft Constitutional Treaty there will
for the first time be the status of voting Commissioners and non-voting
Commissioners, how do you think that this will be sold in
countries with non-voting Commissioners?
Mr Straw: On your first point,
I understand the argument which is made by the smaller countries.
On your second point, it is controversial so it is something we
have got to examine.
Q19 Miss McIntosh: If you understand
my argument on the first point, does the Government support that
argument?
Mr Straw: As far as this is concerned,
it is an issue of direct concern more to the smaller states than
to us. We will be discussing this issue, as I have already started
to do both with members of the Foreign Ministers Council and informally
with members of the Commission.
|
