Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-110)
TUESDAY 25 MARCH 2003
RT HON
PETER HAIN
MP, MR NICK
BAIRD AND
MR RICHARD
WESTLAKE
Mr Connarty
100. Turning, Minister, to one of my favourite
topics because I am always amazed by how ideas spring up in the
Commission, are knocked down and keep springing back up again.
One of course, is the European Public Prosecutor which continues,
despite the attempt of heavy feet, yours and others, to stamp
it out, and keeps coming back. Is the UK Government still opposed
to the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor and will
it seek to have this Article deleted because it does not seem
to make sense that it is in there at all, given the previous responses
in Council meetings to this idea?
(Peter Hain) Yes, we are still opposed to that and
we have sought in our amendments to delete it.
Mr David
101. Following on from that, one of the comments
that we have heard from Mr David Heathcote-Amory was with regard
to the way ideas have come from this particular Working Group
and there has been a suggestion that perhaps the conclusions have
not reflected the diverse opinions which were actually expressed.
Can I ask you, as someone yourself who is involved in the workings
of the Convention, have you felt on instances that you were dissatisfied
with some of the conclusions that have come forward and have you
questioned the processes?
(Peter Hain) First of all, I have a lot of respect
for the diligence and energy which my colleague the Hon Member
is pursuing on representing the Parliament on the Convention,
but he is a very isolated voice and I think he has excited you
unnecessarily and got everybody extremely worried in areas where,
frankly, it is only the Conservative Opposition that should be
worried.
Mr Cash
102. I think there are different views on that
subject.
(Mr Hain) Yes, I am sure there are. When the draft
Constitution first came out and the Articles were there, some
of them seemed to come from a different Convention. The consensus
is reached, often after hours and hours and hours of negotiation
that I was personally involved in or Baroness Scotland or other
representatives of this Parliament, it is endorsed by the Plenary
and then we find the Praesidium comes up with something entirely
different. I do not know whether that reflects the fact that the
Praesidium itself is heavily weighted towards European parliamentarians
and the Commission with very few Government representatives, only
three I think I am right in saying, for example. But if this keeps
happening, we are going to logjam the whole process. So my advice
to the Praesidium is, listen to the Convention.
Mr Cash
103. I think the question actually which Mr
David was very fairly putting, and perhaps I could put it in slightly
blunter language, what Mr Heathcote-Amory said, and you will know
the facts, is that if he produces a minority report or if he says
something which is divergent from the general view of the Working
Group, it just is not recorded anywhere. There is no opportunity
for a dissenting report to be heard and therefore, given the status
of the number of people who are, as you say, in favour of the
general thrust of the proposals, as compared to the minority who
have been proved right, for example, on economic growth in Europe,
on the question of CFSP, on the question of immigration and asylum
and a whole list of other things, on the evidence, having been
proved right, although they are in a minority, then do you not
think that really it would be only right, unless you can correct
what he says if it is true, that he ought to have the right to
have his views published in a dissenting report?
(Peter Hain) I think there is a difference between
being in a minority and being in a minority of one. I think he
unhappily finds himself in that position.
Mr Connarty
104. It does not enlighten anyone here apart
from the troubled minds of some of the members of the Conservative
Party trying to explain these things. We have heard them in other
venues, so I think your comment is enough.
(Peter Hain) But could I just for the record—
105. It really was more of a comment from Mr
Cash.
(Peter Hain) Yes.
106. I think your reply was enough.
(Peter Hain) I will confine it just to a statement
of record. If you look at the outcome of the Working Groups, including
in justice and home affairs, it does record minority views, including
on the European Public Prosecutor where it says a minority will
oppose and the way the groups tended to work is that where a consensus
can be achieved, if it is objected to by a significant group then
that is recorded, and has been with other reports.
Mr Bacon
107. Minister, the Schengen Agreement, can you
say what the Government's current position is on it and do you
think that we will end up inside Schengen?
(Peter Hain) Our current position is our current position.
It is to remain outside Schengen and retain the opt out.
108. And this process with this Constitution
will not affect Schengen?
(Peter Hain) It will not affect that at all.
Mr Connarty
109. One final question; generally the Government
seems to be content with the extension of co-decision and qualified
majority voting on legislation on asylum, but there are other
areas like mutual recognition, criminal procedure and some areas
of substantive criminal law where the movement is also towards
that position. Where does the Government consider unanimity must
be retained? It does appear that the line in the sand is being
moved back further and further.
(Peter Hain) Joint police operations, for example,
the operation of our judicial system. But as I said earlier, particularly
in cross-border issues which I have referred to, then it is actually
in our national interest. So that is broadly the principles that
we apply.
110. Can I thank you for your time. We have
taken a bit longer than you had and it has been as usual extremely
educational and enlightening for us. I am sure all the Members
think so.
(Peter Hain) Thank you.
|
