Formal minutes
Tuesday 22 March 2005
Members present:
Mr Jimmy Hood, in the Chair
| Mr Liam Byrne
Mr William Cash
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
Mr Bill Tynan
|
The Committee deliberated.
Draft Report [Aspects of the EU's Constitutional
Treaty], proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.*
Draft Report [Aspects of the EU's Constitutional
Treaty], proposed by Mr William Cash, brought up and read, as
follows:
This is a Constitutional Treaty establishing a Constitution.
"A Constitution" is "the whole system of Government
of a country, the collection of rules which establish and regulate
or govern the Government" (Wheare — Modern Constitutions,
page 1).
The drafters of the Constitution and the signatories
to the Constitutional Treaty are well aware of what they have
done.
The question is what kind of Constitution have they
created?
In particular, is it democratic, accountable and
transparent?
Nothing in this constitution improves the "democratic
deficit". Central to this is that under the Constitution
there is a legislative process in which the dominant element which
is the Council of Ministers is only indirectly elected and despite
the alleged improvements do not achieve anything like adequate
transparency. Indeed, Professor Alan Dashwood who gave evidence
to the Committee and who is now Professor of European Law at Cambridge
University and former legal adviser to the Council of Ministers
has previously stated in 2001 that "Neither the Council nor
Parliament is capable, on its own, of assuring a satisfactory
level of democratic accountability, in the complex political nexus
of a Constitutional order of States.
This remains the same under the Constitutional Treaty.
There is also the problem of the intrinsic constitutional
foundations on which the European Union is established. This
question of competing jurisdictions and of sovereignty remain
matters of profound concern. Just as the new proposed constitutional
arrangements under the Treaty are undemocratic, compounded by
the role of the unelected Commission, as the initiator of legislation
and the role of the ECJ in interpreting it, so the impact of the
primacy rule is to destabilise the democratic system of Government
in the United Kingdom which has been built up over centuries and
is both democratic and accountable to the voters through their
elected representatives.
* Line numbers given
in these minutes relate to the individual paragraphs as printed
in the Report, or (if the paragraph is set out in full in these
minutes) to the paragraph as printed in these minutes.
The Constitution would be brought in through the
aegis of the European Communities Act 1972. In the debates at
that time it was expressly stated by the Government that "the
ultimate supremacy of Parliament will not be affected, and it
will not be affected because it cannot be affected." In the
light of the evidence we received this is demonstrably not the
case. Irrespective of objections in principle which we have to
the Constitutional Treaty, and subject to the outcome of the proposed
Referendum, we conclude that such a Constitutional Treaty (which
revokes all the existing Treaties and European Laws and replaces
them with a new Treaty, a new Constitution and a new primacy)
should not be implemented into UK law.
Similarly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights would
seriously and damagingly alter our constitutional arrangements.
Moreover, under the Treaties the economic and social agenda has
not worked.
We are deeply disturbed at the prospect of United
Kingdom Acts of Parliament being struck down by any judiciary.
There is an absolute necessity for a Supremacy of Parliament
clause of a kind tabled already to the European Union Bill. This
would require United Kingdom judges to give effect to the latest
clear and unambiguous enactments inconsistent with European Laws,
including the Constitution itself and any laws made under it.
We therefore reject this Constitutional Treaty on
these principles and in the light of the evidence that we heard
during the Committee's deliberations. We have dealt separately
with our specific amendments to specific matters which we investigated
within our terms of reference.
We are glad that there will be a Referendum. If there
is a NO vote, as present indications suggest, we believe that
the European Union should revert to an association of member states
for the purposes of trade and co-operation and that the false
vision of European Government should be abandoned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman's
draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph. —
(The Chairman.)
Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Chairman's
draft Report" and insert the words "draft Report proposed
by Mr William Cash". — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 1).
| Ayes, 2
Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| | Noes, 10
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Nick Harvey
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Main Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That the Chairman's
draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 7 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 8 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 8, at the end to add
"The phrase, 'ever closer union', is carried forward from
the existing Treaties to the Preamble to the Constitution ('united
ever more closely') and to the Preamble to the Charter of Fundamental
Rights ('ever closer union')". — (Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 2).
|
Ayes, 5
Mr William Cash
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Angus Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
| | Noes, 8
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 9 read and agreed to.
A new paragraph — (Mr David Heathcoat-Amory) —
brought up and read, as follows:
"The Constitutional Treaty requires Member States to, 'take
any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment
of the obligations arising out of the Constitution. The Member
States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and
refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment
of the Union's objectives' (Article I-5.2). The equivalent requirement
in the EC Treaty (Article 10 EC) does not cover the objectives
listed in the separate EU Treaty. The Constitution therefore
introduces a new obligation on Member States to pursue a wide
range of political, social and economic objectives."
Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.
The Committee divided (Div. 3).
Ayes, 2
Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| | Noes, 9
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Paragraphs 10 and 11 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 12 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 10, at the end to add "We do
not agree with the Foreign Secretary, given what Professor Eeckhout
and Professor Dashwood stated as regards respectively 'the Court's
reasoning' and 'the thrust of future legislation' and the European
Court of Justice's methods of interpretation and case law (such
as Costa v ENEL and Simmenthal and Opinion 1/91) and the creation
of the Constitution with its objectives, its new primacy and new
competences. We draw attention to the House of Lords Paper 47,
2003/4, at paragraphs 17 and 18, which show that the Court in
adopting 'a purposive approach to the Treaty' has established
a 'new legal order'. We take the view that the statements of
values and objectives will therefore be assimilated by this purposive
approach of the Court into extending the sphere of competences
of the Union in line with this new legal order, including the
new Constitution as it would be interpreted by the Court. We
also draw attention to the view of Professor Arnull and Professor
Dutheil de la Rochére
and Martin Howe QC (see below)." — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 4).
| Ayes, 3
Mr William Cash
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| | Noes, 8
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 13 and 14 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 15 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out "rightly".
— (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 5): Ayes 5, Noes 8 [names
as in Div. 2].
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 16 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out from
the beginning to "we" in line 4 and insert "The
wider range of values and objectives in the Constitution, and
the obligation on Member States to pursue them, is a significant
development. In our view, the European Court of Justice will
apply its purposive approach to the values and objectives, and
this will further extend the competences of the new Union."
— (Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 6).
|
Ayes, 4
Mr William Cash
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| | Noes, 8
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out from the beginning
to "we" in line 4 and insert "We take the view
that the statements of values and objectives will be interpreted
by the European Court of Justice, as indicated by many of our
witnesses, to endorse the new competences and to extend the competences
of the Union. We disagree with the Foreign Secretary. In our
view the Court will interpret the Treaty and the Constitution
and its new primacy within the framework of its well established
purposive approach to interpretation and in line with the statements
of values and objectives as part of the new legal order of the
Constitution." — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 7).
Ayes, 2
Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| | Noes, 8
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 7, to leave out "might"
and insert "particularly given the views of Professor Dashwood,
Professor Arnull, Martin Howe QC and Professor de Búrca,
will more than likely tend to". — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 8).
|
Ayes, 4
Mr William Cash
Mr Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Angus Robertson
| | Noes, 9
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
John Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 17 and 18 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 19 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out "codify"
and insert "assert". — (Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 9):
|
Ayes, 6
Mr William Cash
Mr Michael Connarty
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Angus Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
| | Noes, 7
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 2, after "constitution"
to insert "It is significant that the Article declares that
not only the laws adopted under the Constitution, but the Constitution
itself, shall have primacy. This therefore covers all the obligations
and duties enumerated in the Constitution, including the Charter
of Fundamental Rights which is now incorporated in the Constitution."
— (Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 10): Ayes 5, Noes 8 [names as for
Div. 2].
Paragraph agreed to.
New paragraphs — (Mr William Cash) — brought
up and read, as follows:
"We do not agree with the Foreign Secretary that the statement
about primacy and the Declaration are no more than a statement
of the status quo. This is a new Treaty (revoking all existing
Treaties and European laws under Articles 437 and 438 and unprecedented
as the Commentary on the Treaty by the FCO clearly states). It
creates a new primacy creating a new constitutional arrangement,
if implemented into UK law by an Act of Parliament. The word 'constitution'
as expressed by Bradley and Ewing - Constitutional and Administrative
Law, 13th Edition, Chapter 1 - refers to 'the whole
system of government of a country, the collection of rules which
establish and regulate or govern the government'.
"The Foreign Secretary's reference to Article 27 of the Vienna
Conference of the Law of Treaties cannot in itself, as he asserts,
'fundamentally' give rise to the issue of primacy. This could
only, in UK law, be established by virtue of a statute of the
UK Parliament and not by virtue of the prerogative under Article
27. His assertion is so fundamental and wrong that the issue must
be made crystal clear in a Supremacy of Parliament clause as tabled
in the amendments, already on the Order Paper, to the European
Union Bill. Nothing could be more important than the question
of who governs and how, i.e. through the consent and choice of
voters as authorised by Parliament and no doubts must now be left
unresolved on this, such as was indicated by the assertions of
the late Professor William Wade [1996 112 LQR 568] that the Factortame
case demonstrated that the European Communities Act 1972 had effected
'a constitutional revolution'. Although this was criticised by
other authorities, the fact that such an eminent authority took
this view demonstrates the gravity of the present situation given
the new Constitutional Treaty, the Constitution itself and the
new primacy."
Question put, That the paragraphs be read a second time.
The Committee divided (Div. 11): Ayes 2, Noes 8 [names as for
Div. 7].
Paragraph 20 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 21 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out "Our witnesses
generally" and insert "Some of our witnesses".
— (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 12):
Ayes, 3
Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| | Noes, 10
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Nick Harvey
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 14, at the end to add "This
European Treaty and this Constitution, however, are new and the
existing Treaties and European laws are revoked. The new Treaty
and the new Constitution are new competences and these will be
interpreted by the EJC. Thus Article 1-6 creates a new primacy
with new competences. This therefore is not simply a codification
of the existing principle of primacy but a new primacy within
the range of the new legal order created by the Court, adopting
its purposive approach to the Treaty. (See Opinion 1/91 (1991)
ECR 11061.) As respects the interpretation by the ECJ of the Treaty,
the Constitution and the Declaration on primacy endorsing the
case law of the ECJ, in combination with Section 3 of the European
Communities Act 1972 which requires British judges to determine
Community law in accordance with the principles and decisions
of the ECJ, all this in aggregate undermines and destabilises
the established UK doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament."
— (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 13): Ayes 2, Noes 9 [names as for
Div. 3].
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 22 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, after "accepted" to insert
"which we do not". — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 14): Ayes 3, Noes 8 [names as for
Div. 4].
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 23 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 18, to leave out from "ruling"
to end of line 19 and insert "and although that possibility
exists at present it would become more likely if the Constitution
were given express primacy over the law of Member States."
— (Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 15):
| Ayes, 4
Mr William Cash
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| | Noes, 9
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 18, to leave out "and
would not be changed by the Constitutional Treaty". —
(Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 16): Ayes 2, Noes 9 [names as for
Div. 3].
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 24 to 26 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 27 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 18, at the end to add "Professor
Dashwood states that 'the Community legal order and the national
legal orders function as co-ordinate systems, one is not subordinate
to the others'. However, in relation to the question of who governs
and how, there cannot be two masters. Furthermore the rule of
primacy as enacted in the UK statute is intended to subordinate
the national to the Community legal order under the principle
of primacy, which necessarily alters the 'fundamental relationship'.
In the light of Professor Dashwood's and Professor Eeckhout's
observations at para 27, a Supremacy of Parliament clause as tabled
to the European Union Bill is essential. Professor Eeckhout merely
states that the 'courts are likely to give effect to the Act of
Parliament which overrules the Act which approves of the Constitutional
Treaty'." — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 17): Ayes 2, Noes 10 [names as for
Div. 1].
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 28 and 29 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 30 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 31 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 32 read.
Motion made, to leave out paragraph 32 and insert
the following new paragraphs:
"We note that Professor Dashwood observed that
'The only question is whether ratification of the Constitutional
Treaty might be interpreted by the courts as having brought about
a further twist in the evolution of the Community law whereby
Parliament could be taken to have bound itself not to counteract
the primacy principle by repealing or amending the European Communities
Act, as long as the United Kingdom remains a member of the Union',
and merely thought that 'it was not at all likely that that the
courts would go down that route in the near future', though he
could not guarantee that the courts would never do so. We observe
similarly that Professor de Búrca
and Professor Eeckhout thought it unlikely that they would so
act. Furthermore, we note that Professor Denza thought that 'the
voluntary acceptance of an explicit primacy clause by member states
might tip the political balance to the centre'. She added that
'if the Constitution were adopted the ECJ would inevitably tend
not only to regard itself as a Constitutional Court but to be
generally regarded as a constitutional court and I think there
will be a greater level of deference and perhaps reluctance to
challenge on issues of primacy and supremacy in particular'. Professor
Arnull considered that the primacy principle might persuade national
courts to accept the principle more readily than in the past and
he added that 'the express primacy provision having been inserted,
electorally accountable constitutional legislators may grant greater
legitimacy and authority than the case law it reflects'.
"It is to be noted that these observations and
advice clearly indicate that there is no certainty that the national
courts would not take the view that the new constitutional arrangements
enacted by the UK Parliament would not in effect amount to an
abdication of sovereignty deferring by acquiescence in the new
primacy and endorsed by Parliament as a whole. This makes the
necessity for a Supremacy of Parliament clause essential without
prejudice to the outcome of the referendum on the Constitutional
Treaty. Indeed the late Professor Wade [1996 112 LQR 568] took
the view that the Factortame case, where the House of Lords struck
down a national Act of Parliament, namely the Merchant Shipping
Act 1988, under the provisions of the European Communities Act
1972, had effected a 'constitutional revolution'. His assertions
may have been criticised by other authorities, but they demonstrate
the gravity of the present situation in the context of the new
Treaty and the new Constitution.
"The primacy issue is not a mere matter of semantics,
nor of academic opinion, nor of strict legality. Already, for
example, the veto has all but disappeared despite guarantees to
the contrary in 1970. The Community method is to effect changes
and then subsequently to state that they cannot be reversed. As
in the late 17th century in the UK, constitutional change in the
UK has been seen to change by constitutional stealth and adaptation
and without strictly legal foundation. Professor Craig of Oxford
University referred to the primacy issue as "a nuclear problem".
We would put it this way, that whereas primacy in terms of its
original limited functions was understood to exist under the European
Communities Act 1972, it has however extended far beyond what
was then originally intended and now raises the issue of the very
sovereignty of Parliament itself. To adapt Professor Craig's analogy,
what was an atom bomb has now become a hydrogen bomb and must
be treated accordingly. It is not merely a matter for academic
discourse, but for democracy and political will. The Supremacy
of Parliament clause would require the UK judiciary to give effect
to the latest unambiguous Act of Parliament inconsistent with
European Treaties or laws including the Constitution itself (as
would be essential if there was a No vote in the referendum),
thereby removing any uncertainty as to where sovereignty lay.
We were appalled to note the Foreign Secretary on February 8th
stating that it would be 'a waste of time' to repeal the European
Union Act if there was a No vote." — (Mr William
Cash.)
Question put, That the new paragraphs be read a second
time.
The Committee divided (Div. 18):
|
Ayes, 3
Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| | Noes, 9
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Nick Harvey
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out "We accept that"
and insert "it is claimed that". — (Mr David
Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 19): Ayes 4, Noes 9 [names as for
Div. 15].
Another Amendment proposed, in line 8, to leave out from "courts"
to the end of line 18 and insert "However the issue is less
likely to be resolved by an explicit challenge to parliamentary
sovereignty than by incremental cases whereby national courts
give increasing recognition to the explicit agreement by the UK
Parliament to the primacy article in the European Constitution.
The principle of primacy in the Constitution embraces the most
ambitious case law of the ECJ and exceeds anything required to
prevent inconsistent national legislation interfering with specific
EU laws. Article 1-6 is therefore an extension of the legal competence
of the Union which threatens the principle of parliamentary sovereignty
and thus the reality of self government." — (Mr
David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 20): Ayes 4, Noes 9 [names as for
Div. 15].
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 33 to 36 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 37 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 16, to leave out from "jurisdiction."
to the end of line 18 and insert "The omission of Article
1-16 from the application of Article 111-376 is illogical and,
as Professor Denza pointed out in relation to the CFSP, the way
in which the Treaty is constructed creates (although she was arguing
for a greater role for integration) 'a dichotomy there which I
am unhappy with' and added that she thought 'the situation is
uncertain and confusing'. We regard the situation under the Treaty
with the existing pillar structure abolished as highly unsatisfactory
and dangerous because there will be confusion and uncertainty
as to who decides our foreign policy and defence and yet there
is no certainty that the European Court will not assert its jurisdiction
over the CFSP. We do not accept that primacy should be extended
to second or third pillar matters." — (Mr William
Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 21):
| Ayes, 4
Mr William Cash
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Bill Tynan
| | Noes, 9
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 16, to leave out from "jurisdiction."
to the end of line 18 and insert "However the ECJ has shown
itself to be an activist court in pursuit of European integration
and will also come under pressure to enforce all aspects of the
declared primacy of the Constitution over Member States' law,
including in the area of foreign policy." — (Mr
David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 22):
Ayes, 4
Mr William Cash
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| | Noes, 8
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Paragraph agreed to.
New paragraphs — (Mr David Heathcoat-Amory) —
brought up and read, as follows:
"Article 1-19 of the Constitution lists the institutions
of the Union, including the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The same article requires that these institutions 'shall practice
mutual sincere cooperation'. This undermines the separation of
powers, and our witnesses could find no examples of other constitutions
requiring the judicial authority to cooperate with the executive
and legislative branches.
"Given that Article 1-16 is not excluded from ECJ jurisdiction,
and in the light of other provisions in the Constitution affecting
the authority and independence of the Court, we believe that aspects
of the Common Foreign and Security Policy could well become justiciable,
and it is certainly unsafe to rule it out."
Question put, That the paragraphs be read a second time.
The Committee divided (Div. 23): Ayes 4, Noes 8 [names as for
Div. 22].
Paragraphs 38 to 44 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 45 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 15, to leave out from "is"
to the end of line 16 and insert "ensured because the UK
and its electorate will be bound in law by the outcome in the
Council or COREPER (without prejudice to our insistence that the
UK must insist on the continuance of the veto as being in the
UK's vital national interest and also on a Supremacy of Parliament
clause in the European Union Bill) because the UK electorate and
Parliament have an inviolable right to know what has been decided
in the name of the UK and how that has been done as a matter of
transparency and accountability whether decisions are taken in
the Council of Ministers or the European Council. We note that
the Minister for Europe (Mr MacShane) agreed as respects the European
Council, contradicting the Foreign Secretary as he later expressed
himself." — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 24):
Ayes, 5
Mr William Cash
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Angus Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
| | Noes, 7
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 46 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 47 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 10, to leave out from
"publicity'." to the end of line 14. — (Mr
William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 25): Ayes 5, Noes 7 [names
as for Div. 24].
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 48 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave out from
"we" to the end of line 10 and insert "assert that
because this is generally a matter of legislation imposing obligations
on the UK electorate the meetings must be in public and a written
record made available to Parliament to ensure transparency and
accountability". — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 26): Ayes 5, Noes 7 [names
as for Div. 24].
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 49 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out "public".
— (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 27): Ayes 5, Noes 7 [names
as for Div. 24].
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 50 and 51 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 52 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 7, after "public"
to insert "and otherwise". — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 28): Ayes 5, Noes 7 [names
as for Div. 24].
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 53 to 57 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 58 read.
Amendment proposed, to leave out lines 3 to 8 and
insert "We do not agree with the Foreign Secretary".
— (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 29): Ayes 5, Noes 7 [names
as for Div. 24].
Another Amendment proposed, to leave out lines 3
to 8 and insert "The introduction of a longer-term European
Council Presidency based in Brussels must be set against the benefit
of six-monthly national presidencies which at least give the countries
concerned some sense of involvement in EU business. The permanent
Council Presidency also raises unanswered questions about how
it will interact with other Presidencies, including that of the
Commission, the General Council and other team presidencies, and
the Foreign Minister." —(Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 30):
|
Ayes, 4
Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Angus Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
| | Noes, 8
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Nick Harvey
Sandra Osborne
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 59 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 4, after "Council" to insert
", ensure implementation of the European decisions, control
a 'European External Action Service', present common positions
to the UN Security Council, and". — (Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 31):
Ayes, 6
Mr William Cash
Mr Michael Connarty
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Angus Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
| | Noes, 6
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the Noes.
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 60 to 64 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 65 read.
Motion made, to leave out paragraph 65 and insert the following
new paragraph:
"The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs will have powers
and responsibilities which go well beyond those held by the present
EU foreign policy office holders. The Foreign Minister's dual
role as a member of the European Commission and the Council of
Ministers raises questions of conflict of interest and accountability
and it remains to be seen whether 'double-hatting' will work."
— (Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the new paragraph be read a second time.
The Committee divided (Div. 32): Ayes 5, Noes 7 [names as for
Div. 24].
Motion made, to leave out paragraph 65 and insert the following
new paragraph:
"We do not accept the concept of a Minister for Foreign Affairs
nor the co-ordination of the EU's foreign policy and we object
to the possibility that the Court of Justice should have any role
in such matters and refer in this context to the evidence of Professor
Priban of Charles University, Prague, to the House of Lords and
to the House of Lords' concerns in this regard." —(Mr
William Cash.)
Question put, That the new paragraph be read a second time.
The Committee divided (Div. 33):
Ayes, 3
Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| | Noes, 8
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out "and it remains
to be seen whether 'double-hatting' will work well." and
insert "It remains to be seen whether 'double-hatting' will
work well but, on balance, it would appear that the indications
are positive". — (Mr Wayne David.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 34):
| Ayes, 7
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
| | Noes, 4
Mr William Cash
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 66 to 74 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 75 read.
Motion made, to leave out paragraph 75 and insert the following
new paragraph: "We reject the concept of enhanced co-operation
and of permanent structured co-operation." — (Mr
William Cash.)
Question put, That the new paragraph be read a second time.
The Committee divided (Div. 35):
| Ayes, 4
Mr William Cash
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
John Robertson
| | Noes, 7
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Angus Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Amendment proposed, at the end of line 9, to add "The provisions
for 'permanent structured cooperation' in the security and defence
field, to be implemented by majority voting, remain of concern
as a potential rival to NATO." — (Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 36):
Ayes, 3
Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| | Noes, 7
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Angus Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 76 to 81 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 82 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 83 to 86 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 87 read, as follows:
"The Explanatory Notes to Article II-111 appear
to reduce rather than increase legal certainty. 'In the scope
of Union law' has a wider meaning than 'implementing Union law',
and, in view of the ECJ's existing case-law, we have little doubt
that the Court will choose the broader meaning in determining
the scope of the Charter. Nevertheless, Article II-111 should
be sufficient to ensure that the Court will not advance its human
rights jurisdiction beyond the scope of Union law as defined in
its present case-law."
Motion made, to leave out paragraph 87 and insert
the following new paragraph: "We reject the Charter of Fundamental
Rights and note that the former Minister for Europe described
it as no more legally binding than the Beano, which statement
has since been repudiated." — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the new paragraph be read a second
time.
The Committee divided (Div. 37):
|
Ayes, 2
Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| | Noes, 8
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Amendments made.
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 88 to 90 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 91 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave out from "far."
to first "the" in line 8 and insert "We note the
Government's optimism that the horizontal clauses effectively
resolve any potential for conflict between the Charter and the
ECHR, and" — (Mr Wayne David.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 38):
| Ayes, 5
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
| | Noes, 7
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr William Cash
Mr Michael Connarty
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Angus Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 10 at the end to add "We
reject the Charter of Fundamental Rights and object to the general
expectation that the ECJ will follow the case law of the European
Court of Human Rights which has already undermined so much UK
legislation and the UK Parliament, for example in its capacity
to deal with terrorism. It is to be noted that in the Belmarsh
case the House of Lords, which is about to become a Supreme Court,
struck down an enactment on the grounds of incompatibility, reminiscent
of the Factortame case, albeit under the Human Rights Act 1998
which can clearly be amended or repealed. If the ECJ follows the
case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Charter
of Fundamental Rights which is legally binding as is indicated,
then the situation regarding the disapplications of United Kingdom
enactments will be critical." — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 39):
| Ayes, 2
Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| | Noes, 9
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Nick Harvey
Sandra Osborne
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 92 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 93 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave out "will
be considerable legal uncertainty, which it will" and insert
"could be considerable legal uncertainty, which it would".
— (Mr Wayne David.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 40):
| Ayes, 8
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
| | Noes, 3
Mr William Cash
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 15, to leave out "unclear,
and consider it unsatisfactory that it will" and insert "somewhat
unclear, and we are concerned that it could". — (Mr
Wayne David.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 41): Ayes 7, Noes 4 [names as for
Div. 34].
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 94 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 95 read, as follows:
"The Charter's horizontal clauses contain a number of ambiguities
and uncertainties, particularly concerning the scope of the application
of the Charter and the ECJ's human rights jurisdiction over domestic
legislation and the distinction between rights and principles.
However, while we do not wholly share the Government's confidence
that the horizontal clauses will provide sufficient safeguard
against the extension of the Union's powers and the jurisdiction
of the ECJ beyond the limits laid down elsewhere in the Treaty,
we do not regard the incorporation of the Charter into the Treaty
as likely to increase either the current degree of legal uncertainty
or the current risk of the judicial extension of the Union's competences."
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out from the beginning
to "we" in line 6 and insert "While it could be
argued that the Charter's horizontal clauses lack clarity and
that the safeguards against unilateral extensions of the Union's
powers could be stronger," — (Mr Wayne David.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 42): Ayes 7, Noes 4 [names as for
Div. 34].
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 96 to 99 read and agreed to.
Resolved, That consideration
of the draft Report be adjourned.
[Adjourned till Wednesday 23 March at 2.30 p.m.]
Wednesday 23 March 2005
Members present:
Mr Jimmy Hood, in the Chair
| Mr Liam Byrne
Mr William Cash
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| | Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
Mr Bill Tynan
|
* * *
Draft Report [Aspects of the EU's Constitutional
Treaty] further considered.
Paragraph 100 read, as follows:
"The 2003 White Paper indicated that the Government
would insist that unanimity remain for social security. The 2004
White Paper states that 'the Government has … met its commitment
to maintain unanimity in the area of social security'. It also
states that 'the Convention proposed that decisions on benefits
for EU citizens working in other Member States should be taken
by QMV', but does not add that these proposals were in fact adopted
by the IGC and now appear in the Constitutional Treaty: Article
III-136 provides for the adoption by QMV of measures relating
to migrant workers, whereas unanimity is currently required under
Article 42 EC. The White Paper does refer to the 'emergency brake'
(in Article III-136 (2)), which it describes as a 'mechanism allowing
any Member State to refer a proposed law to the European Council,
for decision by consensus, where a measure affects fundamental
aspects of its social security system, including its cost, scope
or financial structure' and concludes that 'this ensures that
the UK cannot be forced to sign up to any measure that would adversely
affect its social security system'."
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out from
the beginning to "'emergency" in line 7 and insert "The
2003 White Paper indicated that the Government would insist that
unanimity remain for social security, and the 2004 White Paper
states that the Government has met its commitment in this area.
Apart from measures relating to migrant workers, this is the case.
The White Paper also refers to the". — (Mr Wayne
David.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 43):
| Ayes, 10
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Nick Harvey
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
| | Noes, 2
Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
|
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 101 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 102 read, as follows:
"In the event, Article III-270 provides for
the adoption of 'minimum rules' of criminal procedure by the 'ordinary
legislative procedure' (i.e. by QMV and co-decision with the European
Parliament). Article III-271 provides for the same procedure in
relation to the adoption of 'minimum rules concerning the definition
of criminal offences and sanctions'. In both cases, there is
an 'emergency brake' provision whereby a Member State may refer
the matter to the European Council."
Motion made, to leave out paragraph 102 and insert
the following new paragraph: "Although Article III-270 provides
for the adoption of minimum rules of criminal procedure by QMV
and co-decision with the European Parliament, and Article III-271
provides for the same procedure in relation to the adoption of
minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and
sentences, in both cases there is an 'emergency brake'.
This allows for a Member State to refer a matter to the European
Council for a decision through unanimity". — (Mr
Wayne David.)
Question put, That the new paragraph be read a second
time.
The Committee divided (Div. 44): Ayes 10, Noes 2
[names as for Div. 43].
Paragraph 102 disagreed to and new paragraph inserted
(now paragraph 102).
Paragraph 103 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 104 read, as follows:
"It is clear that the Government's 'red line'
has been held in relation to taxation, Own Resources and, in effect,
Treaty revision. The position is not so clear in relation to social
security and criminal law and procedure, where the existing requirement
of unanimity has been replaced by QMV and co-decision, with the
safeguard of the 'emergency brake' mechanism. The Government
has not been successful in maintaining the requirement for unanimity
in those fields, and will instead have to rely on the 'emergency
brake' procedure to prevent the adoption of a measure. We discuss
next whether the 'emergency brake' procedure is likely to be as
effective as unanimity."
Motion made, to leave out paragraph 104 and insert
the following new paragraph: "It is clear that the Government's
'red line' has been held in relation to taxation, Own Resources
and Treaty revision. With regard to social security and
criminal law the 'red line' has been maintained through the 'emergency
brake' mechanism". — (Mr Wayne David.)
Question put, That the new paragraph be read a second
time.
The Committee divided (Div. 45):
|
Ayes, 8
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
| | Noes, 4
Mr William Cash
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph 104 disagreed to and new paragraph inserted (now paragraph
104).
Paragraphs 105 to 118 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 119 read, as follows:
"We accept that the 'emergency brake' mechanism
will provide some protection to a Member State which believes
a measure affects fundamental aspects of its criminal justice
or social security system, but we do not believe it can be described
as equivalent to the retention of unanimity, for two reasons.
First, it involves 'pleading a case' rather than simply withholding
agreement and is likely to be resorted to very sparingly —
indeed, it is likely to be a last resort and would be unsuited
to preventing the incremental unification by the EU of
criminal law and procedure. Secondly, we are not convinced that
the risk of an activist European Court being able to review a
Member State's assertions on the grounds of reasonableness or
proportionality can be wholly discounted."
Motion made, to leave out paragraph 119 and insert
the following new paragraph: "We accept that the 'emergency
brake' mechanism will provide clear protection to a Member State
which believes a measure affects fundamental aspects
of its criminal justice or social security systems. But
it should be noted that it is, of course, a quite different procedure
from straightforward unanimity and will mean that political considerations
will come into play at the level of the European Council".
— (Mr Wayne David.)
Question put, That the new paragraph be read a second
time.
The Committee divided (Div. 46): Ayes 8, Noes 4 [names
as for Div. 45].
Paragraph 119 disagreed to and new paragraph inserted
(now paragraph 119).
Paragraph 120 read.
Motion made, to leave out paragraph 120 and insert
the following new paragraph: "We do not accept the concept
of the emergency brake procedure." — (Mr William
Cash.)
Question put, That the new paragraph be read a second
time.
The Committee divided (Div. 47): Ayes 2, Noes 10
[names as for Div. 1].
Paragraph 120 agreed to.
Paragraphs 121 and 122 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 123 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 4, after "Paper"
to insert "probably reflecting wider political developments
and changing circumstances." — (Mr Wayne David.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 48):
| Ayes, 8
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
| | Noes, 1
Mr William Cash
|
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 124 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 125 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 126 to 138 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 139 read, as follows:
"We welcome the requirement for there to be
a cross-border dimension before EU action is possible, and the
limits on the scope for action in relation to substantive criminal
law. In these respects the Treaty's provisions would be better
than the existing situation. We also accept that a number of
safeguards have been included in the Treaty. However, it remains
our view that the voting arrangements for the adoption of criminal
justice measures under the Treaty do not secure an acceptable
level of democratic legitimacy. They compel Member States which
are outvoted to give effect to measures with which they disagree
in the sensitive area of the rights and liberties of the subject.
We do not regard this fundamental problem as being sufficiently
offset by the 'emergency brake' mechanism."
Motion made, to leave out paragraph 139 and insert
the following new paragraph: "We reject the concept of criminal
justice measures under the Treaty and the establishment of a European
Public Prosecutor." — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the new paragraph be read a second
time.
The Committee divided (Div. 49): Ayes 2, Noes 10
[names as for Div. 1].
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out from
the beginning to "it" in line 4 and insert "We
regard the restrictions on the scope for Union action in the field
of criminal justice as inadequate, particularly as the category
of 'cross-border' crime, and the specified areas of corruption,
terrorism, computer crime and organised crime, are capable of
very wide interpretation." — (Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 50): Ayes 5, Noes 8 [names
as for Div. 2].
Another Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out
from "Treaty." to the end of line 9 and insert "We
have reservations about the voting arrangements for the adoption
of criminal justice measures under the Treaty. Nevertheless,
we accept that the 'emergency brake' procedure can provide an
effective mechanism to protect Member States which are initially
outvoted." — (Mr Wayne David.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 51):
| Ayes, 8
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
| | Noes, 5
Mr William Cash
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Angus Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
|
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 140 read, as follows:
"We agree with Statewatch that the provisions relating to
the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor should not have
appeared in the Constitutional Treaty at all. Even though it
can be established only by a unanimous decision, the fact that
provision would be made for an institution which is potentially
oppressive is a significant defect in the Treaty which may well
be regretted in the future."
Motion made, to leave out paragraph 140 and insert the following
new paragraph: "We continue to have concerns about the establishment
of a European Public Prosecutor, but we note that it can be established
only by a unanimous decision". — (Mr Wayne David.)
Question put, That the new paragraph be read a second time.
The Committee divided (Div. 52): Ayes 8, Noes 5 [names as for
Div. 51].
Paragraph 140 disagreed to and new paragraph inserted (now paragraph
140).
Paragraphs 141 and 142 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 143 read, as follows:
"No-one suggested during our inquiry that the EU could not
continue to operate under the existing Treaties, though a case
can be made that it would operate less effectively. Mr Chalmers
argued that it would make no difference because 'The perceived
difficulties of the Union … are not addressed in a significant
way by the Constitutional Treaty'. Some provisions in the Treaty
could be implemented without the Treaty itself. The Foreign Secretary's
view was that it would be increasingly difficult for an enlarged
EU to continue to operate without the reforms proposed in the
Treaty'; in particular, the EU would have to continue with six-monthly
Presidencies, with the present split responsibility for foreign
policy, with a voting system giving disproportionate power to
smaller Member States, and without other changes to qualified
majority voting. While we accept that the Constitutional Treaty
contains some helpful changes to the way the EU operates, we have
no evidence to suggest that the EU cannot operate effectively
without them, or that those changes are sufficient on their own
to justify the replacement of the existing Treaties by a new one."
Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out "a case can be
made" and insert "we believe". — (Mr Wayne
David.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 53): Ayes 8, Noes 5 [names as for
Div. 51].
Another Amendment proposed, in line 9, to leave out "While
we accept that the Constitutional Treaty contains some helpful
changes to the way the EU operates". — (Mr William
Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 54):
| Ayes, 1
Mr William Cash
| | Noes, 11
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Nick Harvey
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
Mr Bill Tynan
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 9, to leave out from "voting."
to the end of line 12 and insert "We believe that the Constitutional
Treaty contains a number of helpful changes to improve the way
the EU operates. There is some evidence to suggest that the EU
might continue to operate reasonably well without them but, on
balance, we believe that the Treaty merits positive consideration."
— (Mr Wayne David.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 55): Ayes 10, Noes 2 [names as for
Div. 43].
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 144 to 150 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 151 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 11, after "status'" to insert
"as we have argued for many years". — (Mr William
Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 56): Ayes 2, Noes 10 [names as for
Div. 1].
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 152 and 153 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 154 read.
An Amendment made.
Another Amendment proposed, to leave out lines 11 to 15 and insert
"We believe that the UK Parliament and that the electorate
in a referendum should reject the Constitutional Treaty and that
the UK should then negotiate associated status." —(Mr
William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 57): Ayes 2, Noes 10 [names as for
Div. 1].
Another Amendment proposed, in line 12, to leave out "necessarily".
— (Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 58): Ayes 4, Noes 9 [names as for
Div. 15].
Another Amendment proposed, in line 13, to leave out from "EU"
to the end of line 15 and insert "Such an outcome might compel
the architects of the Constitution to abandon their aim of creating
a more centralised, integrated Europe and instead pay attention
to the original instructions in the Laeken Declaration, to create
a simpler, more democratic Europe, 'closer to its citizens.'"
— (Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 59): Ayes 4, Noes 9 [names as for
Div. 15].
Another Amendment proposed, in line 15, at the end to add "which
could well undermine Britain's national interest.". —
(Mr Wayne David.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 60):
| Ayes, 7
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
| | Noes, 6
Mr William Cash
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Anne Picking
Angus Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
|
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 155 read, as follows:
"As indicated above, we deliberately chose in our inquiry
to consider some of the more difficult or complex aspects of the
Constitutional Treaty. Much of the Treaty is easier to understand
than the parts we selected, and is more clearly foreshadowed in
the existing Treaties. We have been able to reach conclusions
in this Report, but some of them are tentative ones, in areas
where the impact of the Treaty in practice is unclear. One of
our witnesses suggested that, although the Treaty simplified matters
a little, the status quo was very complicated and the EU could
only be made simple by changing it radically. Nevertheless, the
depth of the disagreements between academic and other witnesses
about the potential impact of important aspects of the Treaty
indicates the difficulties there will be in increasing public
knowledge of the Treaty in advance of the referendum. This underlines
the importance of serious and sustained debate about the Treaty
beginning as soon as possible."
Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out "been able to
reach" and insert "not been able to agree". —
(Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 61): Ayes 2, Noes 10 [names as for
Div. 1].
Another Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out from "unclear."
to the end of line 6. — (Mr Wayne David.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided (Div. 62):
Ayes, 9
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
| | Noes, 4
Mr William Cash
Nick Harvey
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
|
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
A paragraph — (Mr William Cash.) — brought
up and read, as follows:
"We reject the Report as a whole and because, apart from
our amendments, the Committee's own rejection of substantive parts
of the Constitutional Treaty necessarily means that the UK Parliament,
as advised by its own all-Party European Scrutiny Committee, cannot
and must not legislate to implement the Treaty." —
(Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.
The Committee divided (Div. 63): Ayes 2, Noes 10 [names as for
Div. 1].
Annex [Summary] amended and agreed to.
Annex [Glossary] agreed to.
Question put, That the Report, as amended, be the
Fourteenth Report of the Committee to the House.
The Committee divided (Div.64):
| Ayes, 9
Mr Liam Byrne
Mr Michael Connarty
Mr Wayne David
Jim Dobbin
Sandra Osborne
Anne Picking
Angus Robertson
John Robertson
Mr Bill Tynan
| | Noes, 3
Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
|
Resolved, That the Report, as amended, be the Fourteenth
Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman
do make the Report to the House.
Several Papers were ordered to be appended to the
Minutes of Evidence.
Ordered, That the appendices
to the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be reported
to the House.— (The Chairman.)
[Adjourned till Monday 4 April at 4.20 p.m
| 
