Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
2 DECEMBER 2003
MR STEPHEN
TIMMS MP, MR
PATRICK ROBINSON,
MR PETER
THOMPSON AND
MR LAURENCE
WILLIAMS
Q20 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Could you confirm
that you will be tabling amendments covering those other points
I mentioned, particularly such matters as the United Kingdom's
rights in respect of third parties and the implication for treaty
negotiations on matters such as decommissioning. They are not
covered in your amendment so far. They are of very real concern
to the industry. Could the Minister confirm that what he has said
so far is not exclusive to raising further matters?
Mr Timms: No. My position at the
moment is that the amendments we have tabled will meet UK concerns.
We will of course continue to talk to the industry and our aim—and
I am confident we will achieve it—is a resolution which
will meet the concerns of the industry and the needs of the UK
economy. My view currently is that the amendments we have tabled
jointly with the Netherlands will meet our aims.
Q21 Mr Connarty: I was very keen that
you should come and answer questions on this topic, because I
believe that somebody dropped the ball somewhere. May I ask a
series of very short questions which only require short answers?
Is it not true that the advice given to the Minister from your
department when he tabled the convention amendment was in fact
that the chapter should be removed.
Mr Timms: Certainly there was
a view at one stage that whether or not there should be an energy
chapter was a matter for debate. Our clear view now is that there
is merit in having a chapter.
Q22 Mr Connarty: I have had sight of
a document which came from your department which said specifically
that the line to take was to have this chapter removed because
it was superfluous to everything which was in the treaty. Can
I ask when the amendments were tabled? I have a copy of the document
referred to by Mr Robertson, because I was in Rome last week when
Foreign Secretary Fratini tabled the amendments which were coming
to Naples and there was certainly not one in the name of the United
Kingdom. There was only one in the name of the Netherlands. Is
it not true that these amendments were only tabled at Naples?
Mr Timms: As I have said, I will
provide more information to the Chairman about the dates. What
I can say is that Jack Straw raised our three concerns about the
energy chapter at the meeting of foreign ministers on 28 October.
The prime minister subsequently raised energy with Prime Minister
Berlusconi the following day as one of our top concerns and there
have been several other opportunities to raise these concerns.
Since we initiated talks with the Netherlands, both states have
now agreed the amended text that you have seen and submitted it
jointly to the presidency. I am absolutely confident—
Q23 Mr Connarty: That is not what I am
asking. Sometimes I am asked by departments to go and talk about
scrutiny and I tell them that one very important lesson is that
obfuscation is of no use to this Committee and it is of no use
to this Parliament and I am getting the feeling that is what we
are getting in replies. Can I have specific answers to specific
questions? What happened between the time that the European Minister
tabled the amendment at the convention and the fact that by October
industry had to cry out very loudly that we had missed the point
and we had dropped the ball? Was it your department? Did you continue
to give the advice or amended advice that we could secure amendments
such as are tabled now or did you in fact take your eye off the
ball? It appears that three months elapsed with absolutely nothing
being done and it looked as though we were going to have an energy
chapter which would threaten all of the things which are now hopefully
going to be safeguarded. Can I say that I do not believe this
amendment safeguards the specific point of doing a treaty deal
with Norway, for example, in the future, because it does not talk
about supplies from other countries on their own? I want to know
who took their eye off the ball. Was it your department? Was it
yourself? Was it someone in the Foreign Office?
Mr Timms: First of all, you have
suggested I have been giving obfuscating answers. I want to make
it absolutely clear that it is certainly not my intention and
I hope the record will show that my answers have been clear and
also succinct. I have said that I will provide in writing the
detail of exactly when the amendments were submitted but we did
raise them on 28 October and we were certainly in discussion with
the oil companies well before 27 October. I must say that in my
discussions with the oil industry, with some very senior figures
in the oil industry, they have been very appreciative of the way
that we have been active in raising these concerns in the negotiations.
Q24 Mr Connarty: Since they wrote to
the prime minister.
Mr Timms: You have asked me some
specific questions and have accused me of not giving sufficiently
clear answers, so I should like to make sure that I have covered
the points you have raised. On the bilateral point, you expressed
concern that this could stop us making bilateral agreements like
the one we recently entered into with Norway. I can say that the
European Union already has competence to conclude agreements with
third parties. Where it does not take action, then Member States
can continue to do so.
Q25 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: May I address
that issue? The Minister will know that under Article 12.2 the
Union gained exclusive competence for the conclusion of international
agreements which affect an internal Union act. It therefore follows
that if they take legislative action under the new Article 157
they will thereby obtain exclusive competence for the conclusion
of all international agreements touching those same matters under
this new clause in the constitution. I am not quite sure the Minister
has fully grasped the dangers here of giving up our international
competence and of the consequence of allowing the Union to legislate
internally.
Mr Timms: I can only say that
it remains absolutely essential that we retain the ability to
enter into bilateral agreements of that kind, as we have done
with Norway. I am satisfied that, given the changes we are proposing,
we will continue to be able to do that.
Q26 Mr David: May I thank you for providing
this text to us and say that you have been more forthcoming than
the Foreign Secretary in providing this information. What is meant
by point 4 where it says "Text on fiscal issues"?
Mr Timms: There is some text there
which is not in front of me either.
Mr Robinson: It just means that
the text has not been amended from what was on the table.
Q27 Mr David: There is no point 4 in
the draft convention to modify. It must be something else that
you are putting forward which you have not presented yet.
Mr Robinson: We are presenting
measures on fiscal issues. You are right. We will come back and
let you have a complete text.
Q28 Mr David: Within? One day?
Mr Robinson: Today.
Q29 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Frankly I think
the Minister has been wrong-footed about this matter of international
agreements and I would ask that he writes to the Committee to
clarify this point. It is a new competence and he perhaps has
not been able on this occasion to give a full answer to my point.
It was following the point raised by Mr Connarty and others. It
is serious and I would welcome further clarification in writing.
Mr Timms: I completely agree about
the seriousness of it and I shall be happy to spell out the position
in writing.
Q30 Mr Connarty: I would also require
quite a bit of written text to explain what I think is a three
or four month memory loss of what happened after the convention
proposal and why we did not get any action by the government until
the industry had to write to the prime minister. I want to know
exactly what the DTI and the Foreign Office were doing to leave
that gap. I do not know who is responsible, but it is a major
error. Maybe it could be corrected, but it takes people's confidence
down to a very low level in the industry.
Mr Timms: What in a way is surprising
about this is that the industry was quite slow to catch up with
the significance of this. Certainly we have not been slow, but
I shall be very happy to provide details of what was done when.
Mr Cash: Could I just amplify one point
which my honourable friend the Member for Wells has made regarding
the question of legal personality? We need to have a full explanation
from the department and the Legal Service of the Foreign Office
on this question. Apart from anything else, we were told yesterday
in the IGC Standing Committee that the declaration which is being
made to the draft treaty with regard to the primacy of law is
to be determined in accordance with the precedents laid down by
the Court of Justice, which raises some very serious questions
about the extent to which the current UK jurisdiction with regard
to any subsequent domestic enactment following the constitution
itself would be applied by the UK courts or by the Court of Justice.
In relation to this question we are now dealing with, that too
is a matter which needs to be taken into account. Quite clearly
the Court of Justice will take a different view from the likely
decision which will be made by the UK courts in relation to our
natural resources.
Q31 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Minister, you
are responsible for the competition aspects of energy policy as
part of your portfolio, that is to say competition between energy
sources, competition between energy suppliers and producers. Are
you alarmed that competition policy becomes an exclusive competence
of the Union under Article 12.1 and therefore even domestic United
Kingdom policy matters and rules will slip out of your hands and
become an exclusive competence of the Union which is defined to
mean that we would not be able to legislate or regulate in those
areas. That is what exclusive competence means. Have you addressed
this in your department, in other words, the imminent loss of
your competition policy duties and responsibilities under the
Constitution?
Mr Timms: I am not expecting imminently
to lose those abilities. I do not have in front of me Article
12.1 but I shall be very happy to include in my letter how we
see the impact of that change.
Q32 John Robertson: There were attempts
during the Maastricht and Amsterdam negotiations to insert an
energy chapter into the treaty, which were ultimately unsuccessful
in the past. Do you think that the present, perhaps more modest,
attempt will be more successful? Could you tell us which countries
are supporting the UK?
Mr Timms: Do you mean supporting
the UK over the energy chapter?
Q33 John Robertson: Yes.
Mr Timms: We have jointly tabled
a proposal with the Netherlands and we are working on gathering
support for the position we have taken. I do have some information
about where we have got to. It is certainly helpful from my point
of view that the Italian Foreign Minister made the point that
the current presidency text had only been the beginning of a response
to the concerns about energy and that further improvements will
be made. Potentially, having an energy chapter may well be helpful
and in that sense may well be a helpful step in terms of making
some of these matters more transparent than they have been in
the past. We have had support indicated, apart from the Netherlands
which I have mentioned, on the part of Denmark, Malta and Finland
and we think there are indications that we may well secure further
support or at least acquiescence to what we are proposing on the
part of other countries as well.
Q34 John Robertson: We would need a lot
more than that to be successful, would we not?
Mr Timms: Yes, but a good deal
of work is going on and there are good grounds for optimism.
Q35 Mr Cash: Including an energy chapter
inevitably draws the whole of the series of questions that we
have just been dealing with within the remit of the European Court.
I simply cannot understand how you can reconcile that on the one
hand within the framework of a constitution and the primacy of
the Court of Justice, as both the Foreign Secretary and the current
declaration proposes, with the answers you are seeking to give
us, which are presumably aimed at trying to assure this Committee
that British interests are being properly protected. Including
the energy chapter is effectively handing the whole of our energy
regime over to the framework of the European Court.
Mr Timms: If we are successful
in securing the amendments which have been proposed, then we shall
be successful in securing the right of the UK "to determine
the sources of energy within its territory to be made available
for exploitation and the manner of any exploitation" and
so on. What is helpful about having an energy chapter is that
there is already considerable competence in energy in the European
Union and putting it into the form of a chapter does make that
more transparent than it has been up until now. To that extent,
having a chapter is helpful, but we do need to make sure that
UK interests are protected and that is what we are working to
do.
Q36 Mr Cash: It will also no doubt lead,
in the context of proposed objectives for tax harmonisation,
to the provision of an extremely useful milk cow for the European
Union, will it not?
Mr Timms: You know well the British
Government's position on tax harmonisation and I have every expectation
that we will be successful.
Q37 Chairman: What purpose does the Italian
declaration serve? Do you consider it helpful to the UK?
Mr Timms: I am sorry. What purpose
did . . .?
Q38 Chairman: The Italian presidency
tabled a declaration on the effect of Article III-157, stating
that it does not affect the right of Member States to take measures
to secure their own security of energy supply "under conditions
provided for in Article III-16". What purpose does it serve
and do you consider it helpful?
Mr Timms: This is in the context
of the discussion about the energy chapter.
Q39 Chairman: Yes.
Mr Timms: It is certainly the
case that the presidency has been listening to the concerns that
we expressed and to that extent it is helpful. It does include,
for example, the declaration that the energy chapter does not
interfere with Member States' right to take emergency measures
during fuel shortages. The statement does represent some helpful
progress, but it is not sufficient. The declaration on its own
does not have legal standing and that is why, as I mentioned earlier,
what the Italian Foreign Minister said about the current text
only being the beginning of the response to concerns about energy
is helpful.
| 
