Select Committee on European Scrutiny Minutes of Evidence


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.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 31 July 2006