Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
RT HON
GEOFFREY HOON,
MR ANTHONY
SMITH AND
MS SHAN
MORGAN
12 JULY 2006
Q20 Michael Connarty: Yes, we meet
once a week; that would be right. You would send it on the day
we were meeting, we would look at it the next day we met, seven
days later.
Mr Hoon: Yes. I am not quite sure
what the point is.
Michael Connarty: You focused on the
timing. I do not know if you think that is the context of Mr Cash's
question.
Q21 Mr Cash: I do not want to get
caught up in the technicalities that you have just described.
What I am concerned about is that there is a document called European
Transparency. We know that the Government has a view on
it. The criticism of the Committee is that the Government's view
is not given. The fact that the Government's view was not given
is unforgivable because the Government does have a view on it
so why does he not give it to the Committee? It is terribly simple.
It just is total inefficiency or arrogance.
Mr Hoon: On the contrary, as my
letter makes clear, the Commission's deadline for response is
not until 31 August. The question of transparency and the way
in which Council meetings operate is a matter that affects all
government departments, and indeed different government departments
will face rather different problems depending on the nature of
the Council and the way in which different Councils operate. Some
Councils are much more formal, in others there is genuine negotiation
taking place. Part of the issue in relation to transparency, which
this Government have very strongly supported, is that some Council
meetings will be less appropriate for formal and complete transparency
simply because they are in the nature of a negotiation.
Q22 Mr Cash: So why was the Government's
view not given?
Mr Hoon: Because, as my letter
sets out, and I apologise for reading it at the Committee, "As
I am sure you will appreciate, it would be inappropriate for me
to comment further before completing a formal consultation exercise
involving other government departments and devolved administration
from relevant stakeholders", so the Government actually is
doing what I would assume the Committee wanted it to do, which
is to garner a wide range of opinion amongst those most affected
by these decisions. I would have thought the Committee would have
approved of that.
Q23 Michael Connarty: I think we
have the question and the position stated. Before we move on,
one question to answer that I hope will be simple is this. Can
we have your assurance that this Committee will be alerted in
good time about any proposal for a civilian ESDP mission to Kosovo?
Mr Hoon: I hope so.
Q24 Michael Connarty: It is dependent
on some other department, is it?
Mr Hoon: It is not dependent—well,
it is actually dependent on some other department, but what I
am saying is that, providing I have a text that is agreed and
in its final form that I can communicate to the Committee in due
time, I will undertake to do that.
Q25 Jim Dobbin: Before we move on,
could we agree that the list of problems and difficulties that
we perceive here is offered to the Department so that they can
have a look at it? Otherwise we will be going through this list
again.
Mr Hoon: I would be grateful for
that.
Q26 Michael Connarty: I would suggest
that that would be useful and I would also suggest we take it
further and that our Clerks and our advisers would enlarge on
what is a cryptic note for us because we have already heard these
things verbally before the Committee.
Mr Hoon: Michael, I would be grateful
for that. It would be extremely helpful, extremely constructive,
and it would allow me then to go back to the department. I assure
you, Michael, and other members of the Committee, that if there
are problems in the department and the department are not behaving
properly I will undertake both to the Committee and to my department
to make sure that these issues are sorted, but I cannot do that
without having chapter and verse.
Michael Connarty: That is fine.
Can we move on to the larger issue of the scrutiny of European
business in the longer term future?
Q27 Jim Dobbin: This is really a
follow-up to what we have just been through. You are wearing a
different hat now. You were Leader of the House when we were looking
at improving the scrutiny system here and we had an away-day and
there was a report from the Modernisation Committee and you actually
told us yourself at that time, but nothing much has happened since
then, and, of course, we are going on working the system as we
have done in the past. I am just wondering if you wanted to comment
on that, particularly looking at the possibility of maybe a select
committee style system on some of the other issues that we raised
at the time and trying to involve Members of both Houses and MEPs,
et cetera, in the whole process.
Mr Hoon: I was extremely grateful,
as you say, Jim, wearing a different hat, for the very positive
way in which the Committee responded to the suggestions I made
in the course of that discussion, and personally I remain of the
opinion that there are improvements that could be made to the
process of European scrutiny. Obviously, that now depends on other
people continuing their debate, and I am sure the Committee will
have its own views as to how to take it forward. For example,
and I think it is consistent with what has been said already,
the proposal by the Commission to send proposals for legislation
direct to national parliaments is something that I both personally
strongly supported as well as the Government and I think that
will also help reduce the amount of time taken inside the Government
sometimes to prepare a Government response before it is communicated
to Parliament. This process, as I think we discussed on that occasion,
could proceed at the same time. I see no reason why national parliaments
should not be engaged earlier in the process and I think that
is consistent with the right emphasis today on getting more participation
from national Members of Parliament.
Q28 Mr Borrow: I know, Minister,
it is not your direct responsibility and, of course, it was your
responsibility as Leader of the House, but in your current position
have you had further time to reflect on some of those proposals
and any thoughts past some of the thoughts you had several months
ago when we talked?
Mr Hoon: As I said in answer to
Jim's question, I have not changed my own personal views on that.
Clearly there is a Government position on these questions that
now depends on someone else to carry forward, but my personal
thinking remains exactly as it was. In some ways, coming back
to this job only emphasises my view of the need for some improvements
in the scrutiny process. I say that not only from the perspective
of the House of Commons but also from the perspective of Government.
I think it helps Government to have a clearer view of legislative
proposals from Members of Parliament.
Q29 Mr Borrow: One of the things
that we are very conscious of is that the existing system has
drifted for over a year since the last election and there is no
sign of any movement to streamline, modernise, strengthen the
system. Our impression is very much that it has been put on the
back burner as far as the Government is concerned and we could
well end up with what many of us would think was an unsatisfactory
system of scrutiny.
Mr Hoon: From my perspective I
do not agree that the Government put it on the back burner. There
is both, as I think Jim referred to, an outstanding Modernisation
Committee report and some further discussions that have taken
place within Government. I keep coming back to the same mantra,
I am afraid, David, which is that it is no longer something for
which I am directly responsible, though my personal views have
not changed, and I cannot satisfy the Committee about something
that I am not in the lead on.
Q30 Michael Connarty: Surely, as
the Minister for Europe, the Government is interested in your
views on what would raise the profile of Europe, particularly
given that there are many issues that should be debated and also
publicised about how Europe is beneficially operating for the
people of the UK, which obviously does not get in the tabloids
or any of the printed media. Along with things like the Parliamentary
European Committee with MEPs sitting with MPs and Members of the
other House which was very strongly supported by this Committee
and yourself, there are other avenues through which you can still
hopefully continue to enthuse the Government about this change
regardless of which channels it eventually comes through.
Mr Hoon: I think that is a very
helpful suggestion and wholly consistent with some of the comments
and speeches that I have been making since coming back to this
job. Finding ways in which we can highlight what is really happening
in the institutions of the European Union at an early stage of
the process is extremely good for the Government, I think it is
good for Parliament, but, crucially, it is good for the people
of this country.
Q31 Michael Connarty: Can I impress
on you another issue, the Modernisation Committee's suggestion
that the Government should offer explanatory memoranda on important
Commission consultations ahead of the formal document emerging
from the Commission? Could that be looked administratively rather
than what seems to be the rather pointless process that we are
locked into at the moment?
Mr Hoon: But, as I say, my concern
remains that these documents do change and can change quite significantly
and therefore I really am anxious not to waste the Committee's
and other people's time in having a discussion about documents
that may not be in their final form.
Michael Connarty: We will move
on from that topic. We share aspirations on some of that. Can
we move on to looking to the future?
Q32 Mr Cash: With respect to the
question of what is going to happen in January when the Germans
take over the Presidency of the Union—
Mr Hoon: Fireworks possibly?
Q33 Mr Cash: It is difficult to know
and we would like to find out from you. That is why you are here.
Angela Merkel, on 17 November last year, said that the Constitution
was going to be brought back on to the agenda. We know that the
Austrians have tried to kick-start that and we know there have
been some stalled discussions. We know that there is supposed
to be a period of reflection for another year. How does that coincide
with the apparent statement of the German Presidency? What I am
really interested in is whether in fact the Government is prepared
to say unequivocally that it is not going to proceed with the
European Constitution even though it keeps it on the order paper
for the purposes of debate. The European Union Bill ought to be
taken off the order paper. Can you explain to me why it is still
on and, secondly, can you explain to me what the position of the
Government is with regard to the German statement which Angela
Merkel made on 17 November?
Mr Hoon: I have had the privilege
of meeting the German Chancellor on a couple of occasions and,
despite that opportunity, I am somewhat reluctant to answer questions
on her behalf. I think that the Prime Minister, who appointed
me to this position, might be somewhat concern if I extended my
responsibilities to speak for the German Government as well as
for the British Government.
Q34 Mr Cash: Do you know what she
thinks?
Mr Hoon: I have certainly had
discussions with her, yes, and she set out her thinking, as you
said, Bill, on a number of occasions, but it is not for me to
try and speak for her or for her Government. As far as the question
of the Bill is concerned, members of the Committee will know full
well that 15 countries, including Germany, have ratified the treaty.
There is a discussion which Bill has generously referred to about
the way forward. There is no agreed way forward at the present
time, which is why in the course of the Austrian Presidency it
was decided to extend the period of reflection for a further 12
months. We are reflecting, but we are thinking about the way forward.
Q35 Mr Cash: But the Prime Minister
has specifically stated in reply to me that it will not be possible
to implement the treaty as it is now set out in the document which
was presented to the House of Commons to be implemented through
the European Union Bill. You cannot implement part of a treaty,
so why not simply take the Bill off the order paper? The Prime
Minister has admitted that he cannot follow it through, so what
is the purpose?
Mr Hoon: If you will forgive me
for saying this, Bill, I think that is a slightly partial paraphrase
of what the Prime Minister actually said.
Q36 Mr Cash: I do not agree with
that because the Prime Minister knows and you know that you cannot,
without reform, actually carry forward the discussions on that
treaty. Everybody in Europe knows it. You had two referenda against
you, so basically all the 15 that you referred to are completely
hog-tied.
Mr Hoon: Bill, you are now extending
my responsibilities to France and the Netherlands and I have to
say that I equally resist speaking on their behalf.
Q37 Mr Cash: So you are not going
to answer my question. That is what it boils down to.
Mr Hoon: I think the question
is clear and I have answered the question in the way which I think
accords with the reality of the situation, which is that there
is a constitutional treaty. Bill, absolutely rightly, has pointed
out that in two countries there have been referenda which have
not approved ratification. A number of other countries, and my
maths always fails me at this point, have still to ratify, but
it equally is the case that 15 countries have ratified and one
is going to ratify, I think, in September.
Q38 Mr Cash: Finally, is the Government
still in favour of the existing European constitutional treaty
which was presented to Parliament?
Mr Hoon: It is clear from the
difficulties that we have seen that it is necessary for us to
have further discussions in order to find an agreed way ahead.
It is not for one country or two countries or any sub-set of the
existing 25 Member States to decide on the way forward. This has
to be done collectively and I would have thought one of the things
the Committee would be looking for is that it has to be done by
unanimity because that is the basis upon which treaties are changed
and that is what we are seeking to do.
Q39 Nia Griffith: You have long experience
of trying to enthuse the public about Europe and I can well appreciate
why we have to have a cooling-off period in the aftermath of those
referenda in France and the Netherlands, but are we not in danger
of just letting the public see Europe as a talking shop once again?
I am sure you have sat through the philosophical discourses by
other Member States on Europe and the ambitions and values of
Europe. The question is really in what practical way can we move
forward on this? We have got a certain number of states having
ratified a constitution. We have obviously got resistance from
others. What is the practical way forward other than simply talking
and talking?
Mr Hoon: I absolutely agree with
that point of view. There is too much discussion about sometimes
rather obscure, abstract, constitutional provisions which, as
a former constitutional lawyer, I might enjoy more than most people,
but I recognise there is a limit even to my enjoyment of that.
What is important is that we look at what the European Union does
day to day to deliver practical benefits to the people of the
European. I set out in a speech a few weeks ago what I thought
was a new and challenging agenda for the European Union based
on the Hampton Court Conclusions, repeated in the Conclusions
of the Austrian Presidency, set out very fairly, I thought, in
a Commission communication on a citizens' agenda for Europe emphasising
the practical benefits that flow from being part of this very
large single market that has legislative capacity to deal with
a range of issues that we face in the 21st century. I think it
is vitally important that we emphasise that practical agenda rather
than perhaps concentrating too much on the detail of constitutional
change.
| 
