Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
RT HON
GEOFFREY HOON,
MR ANTHONY
SMITH AND
MS SHAN
MORGAN
12 JULY 2006
Q40 Angus Robertson: Can I support
you in what you are saying there, Minister, but it does concern
me somewhat? Visiting other EU countries and speaking with other
parliamentarian colleagues or MEP colleagues, everybody is getting
frightfully excited about one particular aspect or another of
constitutional theory or what was part of the draft Constitution,
and now we are supposed to be in a period of reflection and one
would hope that that would involve the public, citizens, and I
see absolutely no sign of that whatsoever. What ideas do you have
with your responsibilities as Minister for Europe, and I know
you have recently made a speech and that is a way of setting out
your stall, about what can be practically done to have a meaningful
period of reflection which is not just elites or European anoraks
talking to each other?
Mr Hoon: I very much agree with
that and I hope I can enlist the support and enthusiasm of the
Committee in encouraging a debate about the benefits that flow
from membership of the European Union. I think it is something
that has been neglected in this country and I think we need to
do more to look at what it means to individual citizens to be
part of this larger market, what it means in terms of the issues
that frankly enthuse people in the 21st century, issues concerned
with environmental protection and climate change and giving help
to the developing world, energy security, a whole range of questions
that frankly can only effectively be tackled multinationally.
That is not to say that we do not need strong positions by a UK
Government on those issues but they can only be truly effective
if they complement the decisions taken as well through the European
Union. It is that agenda that I think is enormously important,
but I agree: we have not done enough to discuss that, and certainly
I will try and do more.
Q41 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: The published
Conclusions to the Brussels Summit last month say in paragraph
43 that despite the two unfavourable referendum results ratification
is proceeding in a number of other Member States. It says, "It
is hoped that this process will be completed in line with the
Conclusions of June 2005", so the British Government, which
of course by definition agreed these Conclusions, is therefore
pleased and supports this continuing ratification process, which
is perhaps not surprising because, of course, the Prime Minister
has signed the Constitution and therefore obviously still wants
it to come into effect. In justifying this attitude the Conclusions
also say, "Citizens remain committed to the European Project".
What is your understanding of that phrase "the European Project"
and what evidence do you have that citizens remain committed to
it?
Mr Hoon: The process that we joined
in 1973 on 1 January to build a larger, more effective European
Union is under way and is continuing and it is something which
broadly speaking attracts support right across the Member States.
There is no doubt that since 1 January 1973 there has been enormous
change, largely for the better, it seems to me, in terms of the
expansion of the European Union to include states that were at
that time undemocratic, unfree and part of a malign international
organisation. It is a remarkable change in the nature of the political
geography of Europe and one that I am sure all of us welcome.
Q42 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: That is all
you understand by the European Project?
Mr Hoon: Well, I mean—
Q43 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Can I just
finish because it is a question? That is an attitude dating from
more than 30 years ago that justifies everything that follows
from it. On such an insubstantial foundation do you really think
you can erect this support for continuing ratification of a treaty
which brings in a constitution? Have you nothing better to say
about the European Project?
Mr Hoon: If you have finished
then I will know what question—
Q44 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I have finished
my question. Now you can start your answer.
Mr Hoon: You are very kind.
Q45 Michael Connarty: I think I am
chairing the Committee, Mr Heathcoat-Amory.
Mr Hoon: I do have some difficulty
in recognising the description of the end of the Warsaw Pact,
the restoration of democracy to a number of countries, the establishment
of democracy for the first time, recognition of the rule of law,
a vigorous engagement in a market economy by a number of countries
which in 1973 had no conception of any of that possibility, but
I accept that perhaps David does not share my view of the importance
of these kinds of changes. Perhaps David would have preferred
to see those countries remain isolated and totalitarian. I think
it is an enormous achievement and it is an achievement that the
European Union can share in because those countries, once they
were free from the Warsaw Pact, once they became independent,
were then given a clear focus, a clear direction. They wanted
to participate in the European Project. They wanted to change
their own laws and practices to allow them to become members of
the European Union. They made enormous efforts to do that and
countries like Romania and Bulgaria continue to do so. It is an
enormous achievement for the European Union and hardly one that
I would describe as insubstantial. On top of that, of course,—
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Mr Connarty,—
Q46 Michael Connarty: No. I think
we have—
Mr Hoon: I can go on, Michael.
If David is going to criticise me for not setting it out in detail
I will be delighted to set it out in detail.
Q47 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: You have
not answered my question.
Mr Hoon: It may take me some little
time. If David insists on—
Q48 Michael Connarty: Can I—
Mr Hoon: I am sorry, Michael.
If David insists on making these carping criticisms on the basis
of my trying to answer his questions then I do not think it is
very reasonable.
Michael Connarty: I think we should move
on because it is unfortunate we sometimes do stray over the line—
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: It is not
an answer.
Michael Connarty:— and that is
something on which we do have to impose some self-discipline.
Mr Cash: On a point of order—
Michael Connarty: People have different
views. I do not think there is a point of order, Mr Cash. I think
we need to move on. People can express these views and hold these
views.
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: It is not
a view; it is a question.
Michael Connarty: Can I just say to the
Minister that the view he is expressing probably finds echo in
most of the members of this Committee. We all understand people
have different views and different assessments of what the European
Union has done or has not done and what it is based upon. You
have expressed your view. Mr Heathcoat-Amory in his question expressed
clearly his view and I consider that it is time to move on to
other topics.
Mr Cash: Could I, on a point of
order—
Michael Connarty: There is not a point
of order, Mr Cash.
Mr Cash: There is a point of order,
if I just may. It is that—
Michael Connarty: No. We are going to
move on to question 24.
Mr Cash: Why am I not allowed
to raise a point of order?
Michael Connarty: We would have to meet
in private and send the public out. Do you really wish to do this?
Mr Cash: Is it simpler to ask
a very simple question that applies to something you said?
Michael Connarty: No.
Mr Cash: The Euro barometer poll—
Michael Connarty: Mr Cash, I am moving
on to another section of our business.
Mr Cash: The Euro barometer poll
completely contradicts what you and the Minister have just said.
Michael Connarty: You can ask to be called
because you wish to ask a question on another matter.
Q49 Mr Cash: All right. In the context
of the passerelle, which is police and judicial co-operation
on criminal matters, it is intended to, and the Government has
expressed a view that it wants to, move to Qualified Majority
Voting. That would transfer action on visas, asylum and immigration
away from intergovernmental to Qualified Majority Voting, and
it would give the right of co-decision to the European Parliament
and it would give the European Court of Justice jurisdiction over
police and judicial co-operation. I am quite sure the Minister
in all seriousness appreciates that this would be a major step.
Can he please explain why it is that they are intending to do
this given the fact that at the moment, with unanimity, we can
actually govern ourselves in these areas within a general framework
of the European Union (although I might not have agreed with the
things that have already been passed in this respect), but to
allow the matters in question to be resolved by Qualified Majority
Vote takes us into dealing with terrorism, deportation; it takes
us into the whole range of matters within Title IV of the EC Treaty.
Will the Minister please, instead of looking puzzled because he
has no reason to do so; he knows what I am driving at, clearly
state why it is that this is being proposed and precisely whether
the Government is prepared to go down that route?
Mr Hoon: The reason I am looking
puzzled, Bill, is that you have started your question with a premise
which you just appear to have contradicted by your conclusion,
because the Government have not taken any decisions in this area,
as your conclusion indicated but you began by saying that we had.
That was the cause of my puzzlement. I was just hoping that we
could start with an agreed factual basis, and if I set out the
factual basis I hope we can agree that because—
Mr Cash: It is in the European
Constitution.
Q50 Michael Connarty: Mr Cash, can
we hear the answer?
Mr Hoon: The position is this,
that on 28 June the Commission issued a communication which they
called "Implementing the Hague Programme: The Way Forward",
which included the very first formal proposal on the passerelle
clause. As Bill has made clear, the passerelle clause is
already in existing treaties, so there is no reason why, in appropriate
cases, it could not be used as a matter of law. The Government
are looking at whether there are advantages for the United Kingdom
in using those existing treaty arrangements but have so far not
reached any clear conclusion, but I would imply mention that we
do benefit and have practically benefited from Government co-operation
in this area. One of the suspects from last year's bomb on 21
July was extradited from Italy to the United Kingdom in 42 days
rather than the normal 15 months simply because of the existence
of what was known as a European arrest warrant, and therefore
there may be areas where we judge it is in the interests of the
United Kingdom to have further and better co-operation in this
area, but we have not reached that conclusion yet and it is something,
obviously, that I would welcome the views of this Committee and
of Parliament on.
Q51 Mr Cash: Do you think this is
a matter for national parliaments?
Mr Hoon: Just let me finish. It
is something that we obviously do want to discuss, but the law
is clear. This possibility already exists in the treaty. It has
been agreed unanimously by Member States in the past and therefore
it is something that is available should we decide it is in the
interests of the United Kingdom to pursue. We have not reached
that view yet.
Q52 Mr Cash: But, answering my question
specifically, do you agree that these are matters which are at
present and should remain, must remain, as a matter of national
sovereignty for national parliaments?
Mr Hoon: I have made it clear
that there are circumstances already where the scope for greater
co-operation has benefited the United Kingdom. If we judge that
there were in narrow and defined areas further benefits for the
UK we would not hesitate in using those benefits in the interests
of the security of the citizens of the United Kingdom. We would
be failing in our duty if we did not do that.
Q53 Angus Robertson: To be fair,
Minister, whether one is for or more sceptical about the use of
the passerelle clause, I think we need to be clear that
we are not talking about the possibility of a narrow range of
justice and home affairs matters being affected by the passerelle
clause. When we visited Finland Finnish parliamentarians and the
Finnish Government were absolutely clear that they wanted the
wholesale application of the passerelle clause in the justice
and home affairs area, so I think it is important, whether we
are for or against that, not to downplay that we might be heading
in a direction that is very significant. I would like to ask a
specific question which is relevant to the Committee and the way
that we do our work. Mr Barroso, in connection with this whole
proposal, said that using the passerelle clause and the
co-decision process was the only means whereby justice and home
affairs proposals could be subject to "proper democratic
scrutiny". It would seem to me that he is saying that is
a much better standard of scrutiny which can be offered on justice
and home affairs, on criminal justice matters, than this Parliament
can on the law for England and Wales or the Scottish Parliament
can for the criminal law in Scotland. It is a pretty fundamental
question as to whether one believes that scrutiny in the justice
and home affairs area, which goes to the absolute core of our
society, can be scrutinised optimally through co-decision at the
European Union level or through the UK Parliament and Scottish
Parliament criminal justice matters. It is not now and it is significant,
is it not?
Mr Hoon: I do not disagree with
that. I think it is one of the important factors which would have
to be taken into account before any decision was taken under the
passerelle to move to a different way of reaching decisions.
It would be a factor, the extent to which we believe that there
could be proper scrutiny of processes which could conceivably
ultimately lead to Qualified Majority Voting in relation to these
sensitive areas. I accept that these are significant issues. It
is why we have not yet reached a conclusion on a proposal which
was only formally made 10 days or so ago.
Q54 Angus Robertson: Do you agree
with Mr Barroso that co-decision is the right mechanism for proper
democratic scrutiny or have you not yet come to a view on that?
Mr Hoon: That is something we
are looking at.
Q55 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: If the Government
did agree to allow the passerelle clause to transfer police
and criminal justice matters over to the main body of the Community
Treaty, it would, of course, probably permit majority voting,
as has been described, but it would also mean that the Community
itself would acquire external competence in these matters. That
is to say, matters governing international agreements. Therefore,
even if we did not opt-in to the specific measures on a
case-by-case matter, we would still find ourselves precluded from
signing international agreements on these important areas of policy.
Has the Government explored that? Can you tell us if it is of
concern and might influence your decision as to whether or not
to agree to this?
Mr Hoon: Again, I think that is
an important factor which has to be taken into account in deciding
how to go forward. I have spent the last few days attending a
conference on migration issues which are of enormous significance
today to the European Union. As I am sure you will be the first
to say, David, our external borders of the European Union are
only as strong as those in each and every individual Member State.
Questions of flows of migrants into the European Union, Spain,
Portugal, France, Italy and Malta, a very sensitive political
issue today, are important issues which deal with the external
responsibilities of the European Union.
Q56 Michael Connarty: We will have
to suspend the Committee. Can I thank the Minister for attending.
We had an indication that you may not be able to return after
the vote.
Mr Hoon: The division is rather
earlier than I had anticipated, so I can certainly come back up
until 4.30, but I would be in difficulty after 4.30.
The Committee suspended from 3.39pm to 3.52pm
for a division in the House
Q57 Michael Connarty: Mr Hoon, I believe
you had the floor before we left. Would you like to continue?
Mr Hoon: Before the division I
think I was alluding to the balance that has to be struck. Clearly
there are significant constitutional issues which affect the way
in which decisions in this particularly sensitive area are taken.
I think those were pointed out by Mr Robertson earlier. Equally,
I think David Heathcoat-Amory does raise a practical question
of the extent to which these issues have consequences internationally.
I mentioned my attendance at a conference funded largely by the
European Commission on migration and the challenge that poses
to the European Union and how best we work to try and deal with
those questions. Clearly there are security implications as well
on the kind of migration that is taking place. All I say is these
are all factors which will have to be taken into account as we
look at the way forward in relation to the passerelle as
far as justice and home affairs is concerned.
Q58 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Am I right,
though, that if criminal justice and policing matters did go from
being intergovernmental to being considered under the mainstream
Community Treaty that, in fact, the Community would acquire exclusive
competence for these external agreements, not clearly affecting
our external border but our very ability to sign things like extradition
treaties with the United States, which is a topical issue? Would
this possibility be ruled out, as we are advised, if the Community
acquired exclusive competence in that way? I am not asking whether
you agree but whether I am right because that would seem to be
a very, very serious consequence.
Mr Hoon: If the Union acquired
exclusive competence then I think that conclusion is right. I
am not suggesting that it is necessarily the case that these kinds
of changes would necessarily lead to that result.
Q59 Michael Connarty: Can I ask one
small point about the right perception. If the passerelle
clause was used and brought in, would the Commission acquire a
monopoly to propose legislation? If so, would that be acceptable?
Mr Hoon: The process by which
legislation is brought forward generally in the European Union
is set out and certainly would give the European Commission much
greater responsibility in those areas than it presently enjoys,
yes. I am not prepared to say that is the only way in which legislation
is brought forward because there are now different routes. There
is a formal process but the practical way in which legislation
is brought forward is much more homogeneous than it was before.
| 
