Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
MR DOUGLAS
ALEXANDER MP, MR
ANTHONY SMITH
AND MR
SIMON MANLEY
3 MAY 2006
Q160 Andrew Mackinlay: Just to pick
up on this. I do not want to trespass into the issue of the external
representation service or what it is at the present time, but
it does seem to me that the article itself justifies a little
bit of probing. We all recognise that people should have residences
which are not demeaning; they should be appropriate and proportionate.
On the face of it, it does seem that at least some of them—and
I know the press choose the best examples for their story—is
disproportionate. I wonder if in either that note or a separate
note we could have a note of what the accommodation is and whether
or not it doubles up as the office as well. I do find it painful
at a time when we have not got any representation in a number
of key parts of the world that the EU might have a disproportionate
residence facility and/or highly prestigious office accommodation.
I do think we are entitled to have that. If you can look into
it, it would be useful, not that you could turf a person out,
but it does seem to me that you or your successors may be able
to counsel a little bit of restraint.
Mr Alexander: The Council budget
is scrutinised both by the European Parliament and the Council
of Ministers. I will certainly make enquiry at a higher level.
Q161 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: One's thoughts
at this time of the year turn towards the European Constitution
because the so-called period of reflection is about to end. I
and some other members are going to Brussels next week to attend
the Inter-Parliamentary Conference which is transparently about
trying to revive all or part of the European Constitution. What
is the British Government's attitude to widespread calls to revive
at least part of the Constitution, given that the Prime Minister
signed it and therefore presumably is still in favour of the Constitution?
Are you sympathetic to such a device?
Mr Alexander: You are right, of
course, that the Prime Minister signed it in Rome and the position
of the British Government has not changed. In terms of the process
of ratification in the United Kingdom our approach has also not
changed. The means by which the draft constitution would be ratified
here in the UK would be by means of a referendum. That being said,
it is uncertain as to what would be the outcome of the period
of reflection which takes place this June. We are in discussion
with partners, particularly now post the Presidency, to establish
the views of other Member States as well.
Q162 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I want your
views. Do not please speculate on others' views; you are not responsible
for them. We want your views on what the British Government thinks
is right, particularly towards calls to so-call "cherry-pick"
bits of the European Constitution.
Mr Alexander: Let's take this
issue of cherry-picking. There are two possible constructions
that can be placed on that term of art. One description would
be to say are there any elements of the Draft Constitutional Treaty
which we would consider as being potentially important in and
of themselves on the basis of the existing treaties, that is they
do not require further treaty change? Have we ruled out any possibility
of incremental improvements on the basis of existing treaty change?
No, we have not. So, for example, on the issue of transparency
or for example the issue of subsidiarity we have never said that
we would be unwilling to look at further improvements consistent
with Britain's national interests to the rules operating in the
European Union. On the other hand, would we countenance at this
stage seeking to implement elements of the Draft Constitutional
Treaty requiring an alternative treaty base than the Draft Constitutional
Treaty? No, that is not the discussion that we are having.
Q163 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: So you have
said you will contemplate making treaty changes but stopping short
of the Constitution?
Mr Alexander: With the greatest
of respect, that is not what I have said. What I said was—
Q164 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: So you are
ruling that out, are you?
Mr Alexander: If you will allow
me to chose my own words.
Q165 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: One or the
other, please.
Mr Alexander: If you will allow
me to answer the question, I will endeavour to do so. What we
have said is the period of reflection continues. I anticipate
that it may be that the period of reflection continues beyond
June. Have we ruled out any incremental improvements, sensible
rule improvements, on the basis of existing treaties? No, we have
not. However, are we proposing at this stage such changes during
the period of reflection? No, we are not. At the moment we are
continuing to reflect, as befits a government during a period
of reflection, on where the Constitutional Treaty now lies in
the light of the decisions reached in France and in the Netherlands.
Q166 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Please,
I understand you have not ruled out non-treaty changes as a way
of improving matters but what we want to know is whether you are
contemplating treaty changes of any sort at all, or is your attitude
towards those demands from, say, the French Government that you
will not allow any part of the Draft European Constitution to
be brought in if it involves changes to the existing treaties?
Is that your position?
Mr Alexander: No, the focus of
discussions in relation to treaty change, not just with the French
but with other European partners, continues to be about the treaty
changes anticipated by the Draft Constitutional Treaty. That is
the focus and substance of our discussions. That being said, given
the decisions that were reached both in France and the Netherlands
respectively in referendums, I think the right response is not
simply to carry on as if nothing had altered but instead to have
a period of reflection. As I say, my personal view, and indeed
the view of the Government, is that there may be cause for continuing
that period of reflection, but that will be a matter to be discussed
with our partners ahead of the June European Council, and that
is the focus of our discussions at the moment.
Q167 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Sorry, you
must give a clear answer. You have said that you are contemplating
non-treaty changes, in other words rule changes that do not require
amending the existing treaties. We all understand that. What I
want to know is your attitude towards modifying, amending or changing
the existing treaties in order to bring in parts of the Constitution.
I take it from your answer just now that you are looking at this
in an overall context but you have not ruled it out, or have you?
Mr Alexander: Let me try and explain.
The context is the period of reflection. The focus of our work
during the period of reflection—and this was reflected in
the Prime Minister's speech at St Antony's College at the turn
of the year—is the practical improvements to the lives of
European citizens. That was why we started the Hampton Court process
and why we welcomed the fact that there was such a focus on Hampton
Court at the last European Council meeting that took place in
February. As a consequence of that, we believe and continue to
argue to our European partners that the best use of this period
of reflection is not simply to deliberate together as to why French
and Dutch voters rejected the Draft Constitutional Treaty or the
lessons that should be drawn from that, but instead saying as
well as issues related to the text there are issues, undoubtedly
as anyone with a passing familiarity with the French and Dutch
campaigns will know, about the context. That is why we need to
use this period to work with partners, including the French and
others, to see what practically we can look to to meet challenges
such as the challenges of diversity of supply and security of
supply and a genuinely open European energy market.
Q168 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: You must
answer my question otherwise this is a completely fruitless exchange.
I am talking about the suggestion very widespread from many Member
States to amend the existing treaties in order to bring into effect
parts of the Constitution. Please will you answer the question:
are you ruling that out? Are you saying to the French and others,
"We will not allow that incremental bringing in of the Constitution"
and will we therefore confine ourselves to non-treaty based changes?
Mr Alexander: I am being clear
with you that while we could contemplate non-treaty change, incremental
improvements of the rules—and that was made clear as early
as the initial discussions immediately following the French and
Dutch referenda—the focus of our work during this period
of reflection, as reflected in our discussions with other European
partners, is firstly the status of the Draft Constitutional Treaty
in the light of the rejection of it by the French and Dutch voters
and, secondly, the necessary practical changes that Europe needs
to make—and, as I say, you do not need to take my word for
it, read the speech the Prime Minister made to the European Parliament,
read the speech he made to St Antony's College, Oxford, or the
contributions the Foreign Secretary and others have made during
our Presidency. We are absolutely sincere in saying, as the Prime
Minister said back in February, "Don't start with the rules"—and
with respect your question addresses the rules—"start
with the reasons they are needed." That explains the approach
we have taken to the period of reflection, which is an analysis
of why the proposal was rejected, focusing not simply on a textual
context. That is why during the period of reflection the main
focus of our work has been driving forward that Hampton Court
agenda.
Q169 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I am not
interested in the main focus of your work. I am trying to get
you to answer a simple question. I really think this is a fruitless
exchange. I must say, I am very disappointed that this Committee
cannot get a straight answer on the European Union. It is really
quite a simple point which is extremely urgent, because the period
of reflection is about to end.[2]
Chairman: We have other members who want
to come in and we have other questions to ask.
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Can I ask you to
try and help me to get some answers?
Q170 Chairman: I trying to help the
Committee to move through an agenda, and it is quite clear that
you are not going to get a different answer to what you have had
three times now. I am going to ask a different question. Thirteen
Members States have now ratified. We are in a potential position
where, by later in the year, another three or four states might
have done that. At what point does the procedure come into effect
whereby 80% of the states have ratified and at that point we might
be in a different position with regard to the status of the Constitutional
Treaty?
Mr Alexander: Candidly, I cannot
anticipate where all of the other Member States who have not yet
ratified the Draft Constitutional Treaty will go in terms of their
own process of ratification. This will be a subject, I would expect,
that will be discussed at the next informal foreign ministers
meeting, which is due to take place later this month under the
Austrian Presidency, where they have asked that this issue of
the future of Europe be one of the main issues under discussion.
I think probably we will have a clearer sense as to where we will
be ahead of June and where the process of ratification rests after
that meeting under the Austrian Presidency.
Q171 Sandra Osborne: Douglas, part
of the period of reflection and the necessary changes that should
be made must surely be to engender a more positive view of Europe
in the eyes of the people of Europe, including our own people.
I notice that it has been reported that a British firm has been
hired to look at how the EU could be re-branded. If I refer to
your pamphlet, suggesting that that there has been a kind of malaise
building up in Europe with regard to Europe over a 20-year period,
would you agree that certainly in the public eye credibility is
at a fairly all time low? What do you see is the problem with
the branding of the EU and how could it be improved?
Mr Alexander: With the greatest
of respect, whichever British firm has been hired, I do not think
it is an issue of branding, I think it is more one of politics.
I find in my meetings, discussions, debates here in Britain that
if you argue the pro-European cause which I espouse and base that
case predominantly on past achievements of the European Union,
considerable though I would argue that they are, all too quickly
you end up with discussions of deregulation about the curvature
of cucumbers, the sustainability of the British pint of milk or
the British loaf of bread. I think, on the other hand, if you
start the conversation from somewhere different, which is to say,
are there certain challenges which any Member State, however effective
and however powerful, can better meet by working effectively with
partners in the 21st century, issues that I would say would include
how to secure national prosperity in the globalising markets that
we see, how to deal with the issue of monetisation, how to deal
with the issue of counter-terrorism, even how to deal with the
issue of environmental derogation, then I do not think it is difficult
to bring these challenges to the fore, but if the European Union
did not exist we would need to develop something akin to the European
Union to allow us to work effectively and collaboratively together
in addressing those challenges. In that sense, I think the case
to be made for the European Union should be based not simply on
past achievements but on its capacity to address future challenges.
I also think, and this is reflected in the priority we attach
to key areas of work coming out of Hampton Court, that it is vital
that we meet citizens of the European Union on the common ground
of issues that they are concerned about. A good example of that
is the energy policy. There is no doubt that, prior to the Hampton
Court meeting in October, there was some scepticism about the
point of having an approach to energy that was European. I think
fewer people, frankly, after the events in January where you saw
the Russian/Ukraine dispute over gas, believed that it was not
sensible for Europe to seek to work effectively together given
the challenges that we face around security of supply and diversity
of supply; so I am optimistic that a strong case can be made for
Europe based not just on past achievements but on those future
challenges. Of course, there is always more that can be done to
make that case, but fundamentally I do not believe it is as much
about branding as about the arguments for why Europe matters in
the 21st century.
Q172 Sandra Osborne: Yes, but do
you think that people have felt in the past that the EU has dealt
with far too many things, some of which are irrelevant to their
every day lives, and that is why there is less credibility than
perhaps there could be?
Mr Alexander: I think there is
a paradox here, in the sense that if you take some of the major
decisions that are reached by, for example, the Commissioner around
competition policy, there is no doubt that these are very significant
decisions that have a very major impact on the lives and economies
of Europe, but I tend to find that there is not a great deal of
resiling from those decisions being taken at a European level,
because I think people basically understand that, if you are going
to have a single market with 460 million people, you need to have
strong and effective competition policies to be able to police
that market effectively. By contrast, I think there are, certainly
in the way these issues are reported in the British newspapers,
certain decisions where people do not have as clear a sense as
to why Europe is engaged in the matter in the first place, and
that is where, I think, in the past Europe has been vulnerable
to some very bad publicity. It is, therefore, not a matter of
the scale of the decision as much as people understanding the
why of the decision as well as the outcome itself.
Q173 Mr Maples: I wanted to ask you,
going back to this question of cherry-picking or piecemeal implementation
of bits of the Constitution, about the use of Article 308 of the
Treaty, which, if I remember rightly, allows the Council, on the
unanimous recommendation of the Commission, to do things which
the Treaty does not provide for. If in the course of the operation
of the common market it is necessary to attain the objectives
of the community, they can use this catch-all phrase, which is
very wide and allows legislation outside the Treaty. What I am
concerned about is that that is being, or might be used, to implement
bits of the Constitution. Are you aware of any bits of the Treaty
that have been used to implement the Constitution?
Mr Alexander: I am not aware,
on the basis of your description, but maybe you could give me
some more detail.
Q174 Mr Maples: There was an Article
in the Treaty, Article 308 of the TEC (Treaty Establishing the
Community), which, in furtherance of pursuing the common market,
allows the Council to be unanimous, on the recommendation of the
Commission, to do things which are not otherwise provided for
in the Treaty. That seems to me to be an Article which could be
used, or might be used to implement bits of the Constitutional
Treaty piecemeal. I wondered if you were aware of any parts of
it that have been used.
Mr Alexander: No.
Q175 Mr Maples: Is the view of the
British Government that that Article is for the furtherance of
the common market, by which I think most of us mean the internal
market, free trade, those sorts of aspects, the free movement
of goods and people? Is the view of the British Government that
that is what that Article is there to do and it is restricted
to the furtherance of the common market?
Mr Alexander: My own background
as a lawyer makes me somewhat hesitant in offering an oral answer
to you, given as I do not have the technological theory in front
of me, so perhaps I could write to you on that one.[3]
Q176 Mr Maples: Would you, because the
Article was, I think, used to sort of implement the Charter of
Fundamental Rights which was in the Treaty and, I am sure you
will recognise, whether or not it was a good idea or a bad idea,
it was certainly one of the big things that was in the Treaty
and one of the most controversial debates that we have had in
the House. My understanding is that a European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights has been set up under Article 308 of the Treaty.
Is that correct?
Mr Alexander: My understanding
was that the Fundamental Rights Agency did not have a legal base
which was contingent on the Draft Constitutional Treaty, but I
will certainly check that matter for you.
Mr Maples: It seems that your
official perhaps knows the answer to this question.
Ms Stuart: Article 308 is a current
article.
Q177 Mr Maples: I do not want to
describe it as a flexibility clause if there is another flexibility
clause, but there is a catch-all article which allows European
legislation to be brought. My understanding is that it was used
to change the Racism and Xenophobia Institute to a European Union
Agency for Fundamental Rights last summer. Is that correct?
Mr Alexander: It reinforces my
point, but I would be cautious of offering you an answer without
being able both to look at the issue of the Fundamental Rights
Agency and also—
Q178 Mr Maples: I think I am going
to ask you to tell us in writing, but I want to ask one more question.
If it requires unanimity, then presumably, if this Article were
used to implement anything, whether it is part of the Constitutional
Treaty or something else, then it would require the British Government's
approval. Unanimity is something that we could veto readily if
we wanted to?
Mr Alexander: We will wait and
set it out for you.
Q179 Mr Maples: I would be grateful.
You are obviously not briefed to answer these questions, fair
enough, but I would be grateful if you could set out to the Committee
firstly what is the United Kingdom's view of the remit of Article
308 and, secondly, on what occasions has it been used. You can
go back as far as you like, but I am particularly interested in
the last year or two, but I would also be interested in previous
uses of the Article as to whether or not the British Government
(either this Government or the previous one) took a view as to
exactly its ability. If we were to find that for 40 years it was
only ever used for economic things to do with the common market
and then suddenly it is used, for example, for fundamental rights,
then that would show a difference in policy. So, if you could
set it out for us. I just want to make sure these things are clear,
because sometimes we say these things and then we get a letter
answering a different question. Could you set out what is the
British Government's view of its remit and on how many occasions
it has it been used. In particular, was it used to establish or
to change the name of an existing agency to the European Union
Agency for Fundamental Rights?
Mr Alexander: We will endeavour
to do that.
2 Also see Ev 60 Back
3
Ev 59 Back
|
