Examination of Witnesses (Questions 30-39)
TUESDAY 25 MARCH 2003
RT HON
PETER HAIN
MP, MR NICK
BAIRD AND
MR RICHARD
WESTLAKE
Mr Connarty
30. Minister, thank you for hanging around for
so long for us to start. As you know, there were votes in the
Commons. We will try to keep to a strict timetable. I know you
have got timetable problems. We have so many questions to ask
you though since the Convention has been running for such a long
time. Can I start off with the first question on general aspects
of the Convention? As you know, the Convention process depends
on participants moving towards a consensus from their original
positions, maybe in a working group. In what main ways has the
Government had to adjust its views in order to maintain alliances
and move towards a consensus?
(Peter Hain) It is quite early days for
any adjustment, although in the end there will have to be an agreement
and a necessary process of adjustment by all parties. We have,
for example, been willing to look at, with certain very big safeguards,
electing the Commission President through some method, provided
that does not involve being hostage to a particular political
faction and provided that the outcome is one that the Council
can accept. So it is not something we sought and we remain deeply
sceptical about it, but if, as part of the end game, getting an
elected President of the Council, which is very much a priority
for us, involves doing something with the Commission President
with those very important safeguards that I mentioned, then that
is something that we might have to adjust to. But we are not there
yet. That is a practical example.
Mr Hendrick
31. Minister, Article 1 of the draft Constitutional
Treaty refers to the Union as administering certain competences
on a "federal basis" but has no reference whatsoever
to an "ever closer Union". Is the Government now prepared
to accept the word "federal" under certain conditions
and, if so, what are those conditions?
(Peter Hain) The answer is no, we are not. "Federal"
does not mean anything to anybody on a common basis. Or rather,
put it the other way round; it means different things to different
Member States and we are not willing to see the term "federal"
in there.
32. Can I follow that up, Minister, with the
question; are you prepared to see the draft Constitutional Treaty
not go ahead on the basis of not agreeing to the word "federal"
being in there?
(Peter Hain) I do not want to get into threats of
vetoes when we are nowhere near that kind of prospect, but I think
it would discredit the Constitution to have in it a term that
has no precise legal or political meaning.
33. If a definition were brought forward, would
you then be willing to consider it?
(Peter Hain) It depends what that definition was.
Angus Robertson
34. Minister, welcome to the Committee. Can
I ask you what the point is of having a clear demarcation of competences
between the Union on the one hand and Member States on the other
and then a flexibility clause as exists in Article 16 which calls
all of this into question? Does this mean that the Treaty can,
in effect, be amended without the need for ratification by Member
States and their parliaments?
(Peter Hain) No, is the answer to your last question.
Any amendment of the Treaty would have to be subject to the normal
ratification. But the purpose, in our eyes, of the Treaty is to
define very clearly that this is a European Union which springs
from the authority of the Member States and that the Constitution
has to be written in a way that reflects that.
Mr Bacon
35. Minister, the other day in the debate you
suggested that I might have been mischievous for suggesting that
this was more akin to a unitary state, but I was actually not
being mischievous. I was being quite serious because you have
got exclusive competences in Article 11 and shared competences
in Article 12 and, so far as the shared competences are concerned,
they can only be exercised by the Member States where the Union
has not exercised its competence. Does that not suggest that the
emphasis is on the Union first and then you have got Article 16
on top of that which gives further scope to the Union? So actually,
despite the fact that the word "federal" is in there
in Article 1, it is much more like a unitary body, is it not?
(Peter Hain) If that were the case, then previous
Conservative governments have agreed to that because these Articles
including—
36. I am not asking what was or was not agreed
to. I am just asking what is this thing?
(Peter Hain) I am about to explain. Article 16 described
it as the status quo in the existing treaties, and actually the
other references that you have mentioned are taken from the existing
treaties. It is just a different way of expressing what exists
now. So I assume that there is a national consensus on where we
are now because the success of treaties have been endorsed by
governments of both parties.
Angus Robertson
37. Minister, there is quite a vigorous debate
in the Convention about the breakdown between exclusive competences
and shared competences. One of the areas where there is dispute
is over marine resources, fishing. What is the position of the
UK Government? Is the UK Government in favour of that remaining
an exclusive competence or would you prefer it to be a shared
competence.
(Peter Hain) I think I am right in saying, but I will
ask my official, Nick Baird, to clarify if that is necessary,
that this is an area which is already in the jurisdiction of the
ECJ. I think that is right, is it not?
(Mr Baird) Conservation has been defined by the ECJ
as an exclusive competence.
38. So the UK Government is happy to see it
remain as an exclusive competence within the constitutional—
(Peter Hain) No, we are looking at this. I know it
is an issue in Scotland and we are looking at this and we want
to be as helpful as we can.
Mr David
39. On the issue of exclusive competence, is
it the case that, at the moment, as far as exclusive competence
is concerned, Member States are unable to pursue policies in those
given areas as long as they are complementary? But it has been
suggested that as far as the new Article 11 is proposed, that
would be literally exclusive and would prevent Member States doing
policy development in those areas.
(Peter Hain) I think I am right in saying that Member
States, as the existing situation, are able to administer areas
of exclusive competence but not absolutely able to transgress
that competence.
|
