Formal minutes
Tuesday 2
October 2007
Members present:
Michael Connarty, in the Chair
| Mr David S Borrow
Mr William Cash
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
| | David Heathcoat-Amory
Kelvin Hopkins
Mr Lindsay Hoyle
Angus Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
|
The Committee deliberated.
Ordered, That the correspondence
between Members of the Committee and the Chairman relating to
the date and time of the Committee's meeting be published.—(Mr
William Cash.)
Motion made and Question put, That the Committee
regrets the date of its recall during a party conference and requires
that, in future, the dates of meetings during parliamentary recesses
are agreed by consensus. —(Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 7
|
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Kelvin Hopkins
Mr Lindsay Hoyle
Angus Robertson
|
Draft Report, proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph
by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1.1 to 21 read and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report
be the Thirty-fourth Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman
do make the Report to the House
The Committee further deliberated.
Draft Report, proposed by the Chairman, brought up
and read.
Draft Report, proposed by Mr William Cash, brought
up and read as follows:
1. The Reform Treaty, as compared to the Original
Constitutional Treaty, requires a referendum of the electorate
of the United Kingdom because it is the equivalent to the Constitutional
Treaty, even if not the same. It is a distinction without a proper
difference.
2. A referendum is required for the following
constitutional reasons: the Reform Treaty with the merger of the
TEC, based on the Treaty of Rome (which was the genesis of the
European Economic Community), followed by the Single European
Act on the one hand and the TEU (with its genesis in the Maastricht
Treaty which deals with European government, followed by Nice
and Amsterdam), on the other, into a Union with an overarching
single legal personality and a self-amending text is "substantial
constitutional change", even "fundamental change"
in terms that warrant a referendum according to the government's
own criteria.
3. The present Minister for Europe stated to
the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 12 September that a referendum
would be required if a Treaty created "substantial constitutional
change". The former Prime Minister stated that a new Treaty
"should not be proposing the characteristics of a Constitution".
The former Foreign Secretary stated to the European Scrutiny Committee
on 7 June that the government was intending a Treaty "that
was very different from the Constitutional Treaty". The correlation
between the Constitutional Treaty and the Reform Treaty in terms
of the specific provisions incorporated into the latter demonstrates
that this statement can now no longer be substantiated. The government
has also stated that a referendum would be required where there
is "fundamental change" and where the structure of the
relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union
is altered by virtue of the European Treaty. The fundamental nature,
not only of the merger of the Treaties, but also the individual
proposals in the Reform Treaty, alters the relationship by way
of substantial, even fundamental, constitutional change. There
are also specific provisions arising in respect of the Charter
of Fundamental Rights, the Common Foreign and Security Policy,
the legal obligations imposed on the united Kingdom Parliament,
measures relating to the criminal law, and measures related to
Title IV which are deeply contentious and would require specific
exclusion from having effect in UK law which for the avoidance
of doubt could only be achieved by excluding their effect by the
use of a statutory provision preceded by the words "Not withstanding
the European Communities Act 1972". Such a formula would
be essential but the government, by all accounts, would not be
prepared to employ such wording, thereby putting the vital national
interests of the electorate in jeopardy.
4. The Reform Treaty on all these tests requires
a referendum. It would be a deceit of the electorate (even by
the criteria for a referendum set out by the Government) to refuse
to hold one, unless the Treaty itself was rejected by the Prime
Minister in the IGC on 18/19 October as he should. Unless this
occurs, refusal to hold a referendum would be a breach of trust
with respect to the Reform Treaty (let alone past promises about
the original Constitutional Treaty made in 2004) and would run
clearly contrary to the assertions of the present Prime Minister
that he is committed to restoring good governance, democracy and
trust.
5. The accumulation of the existing Treaties
since 1972 combined with the merger described above, has in itself
culminated in such fundamental change as warrants a referendum.
There are tens of millions of people which have not had an opportunity
to express their view on our continuing membership of the European
Union. The Labour government to its credit provided a referendum
on continuing membership of the then European Economic Community,
following its enactment of the Referendum Act of 1975.
6. Contrary to the assertions of the present
Foreign Secretary, Parliamentary sovereignty is not diminished
but actually is enhanced by the granting of a referendum by parliamentary
enactment. The electorate and not Members of Parliament nor the
Government are the ultimate source of parliamentary authority,
sovereignty and democracy all of which Members of Parliament and
members of the Government merely hold on trust subject to re-election
at a general election every five years. This Reform Treaty and
the merger of all the existing Treaties into a Union of European
government, also contains a self-amending text which would effectively
obstruct any future referendum arising out of a future IGC. All
this clearly requires Members of Parliament to hand back to the
voters an impartial question authorised by Parliament and across
the political divide a decision in a referendum as to the manner
in which the electorate as a whole wishes to be governed.
7. This Reform Treaty therefore must not be put
into effect by a Prerogative Act of a former Prime Minister signing
the Treaty and departing and then a new Prime Minister implementing
into UK law the decision through the Whips in Parliament, without
a referendum.
8. It would be a constitutional outrage, in the
absence of a rejection of this Treaty to do otherwise.
9. The IGC has not yet taken place so that an
opportunity for the Prime Minister and the Government to review
the present decision not to have a referendum and even to reject
the Treaty is still open. This is particularly the case as the
decision expressed and the announcement made by the Foreign Secretary
not to have a referendum has been taken without the government
even sitting down at the IGC on the latest text on 18/19 October
2007. This announcement was also made even before the European
Scrutiny Committee had reported on the text. The Committee is
specifically charged by Parliament under its own standing orders
to report on the political/legal importance of the proposed Reform
Treaty and has not cleared the text (the opinion of the European
Commission - COM(07)412) the government's action in seeking to
pre-empt the Committee's assessment of this document in its report
amounts to the contempt of the Committee. Moreover, this announcement
is apparently in compliance with the so-called binding mandate
of the Member States of the European Union of 19 June 2007. This
certainly cannot constitutionally bind the Prime Minister, the
United Kingdom Parliament or the electorate of the United Kingdom.
The Government has erroneously accepted the Commission's opinion
on the ICG. The Committee therefore calls on the Government either
to reject the Treaty or to hold a Referendum. This is on the basis
that on both political and legally important grounds, the Government
has misleadingly denied that the Reform Treaty is a Constitutional
Treaty of the first order, amounting to substantial and even fundamental
change to the Constitution of the United Kingdom and to the structure
of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European
Community and the European Union.
10. The Committee does not clear the Commission's
opinion on the IGC from the scrutiny and requests the Foreign
Secretary and the legal adviser to attend the Committee in good
time before 18 October 2007.
Motion made and Question proposed, That the Chairman's
draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.—(Jim
Dobbin.)
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..
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 7
|
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Kelvin Hopkins
Mr Lindsay Hoyle
Angus Robertson
|
Main Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That the Chairman's
draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 4 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 5 read, amended, and agreed to.
Paragraphs 6 and 7 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 8 read.
Amendment proposed in line 6, after "referendum."
to insert "We note that in 1975 the then Government held
a referendum, the Bill for which was entitled 'An Act to Provide
for the Holding of a Referendum on the United Kingdom's Membership
of the European Economic Community'." — (Mr William
Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5
|
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 9 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 10, at end add "We do not consider
that, in the event, the Reform Treaty is 'very different' from
the Constitutional Treaty." — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 5
|
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 10 to 12 agreed to.
A new paragraph — (Mr William Cash) — brought
up and read, as follows:
"We draw attention to the General Observations on the IGC
Mandate which whilst stating that the constitutional concept consisting
in repealing all the existing Treaties and replacing them by a
single text called 'Constitution' is abandoned, the Reform Treaty
incorporates the innovations from the 2004 IGC and crucially merges
the TEU and the TEC into a Union having a single legal personality.
The Reform Treaty provides that the word 'Community' is to be
replaced by the word 'Union' and that the 'two Treaties constitute
the Treaties on which the Union is founded and that the Union
replaces and succeeds the Community'. This merger is at the very
least the kind of 'substantial constitutional change' to which
the Minister for Europe refers in his evidence to the Foreign
Affairs Select Committee on Wednesday 12th September,
2007. We are further concerned that an attempt has been made in
the so-called IGC Mandate to bind the Intergovernmental Conference
as 'the exclusive basis and framework for the work of the IGC'.
We would expect the Government to make clear that this is not
a legal obligation but merely a proposal. We refer below to the
Constitutional nature of the Reform Treaty. We are gravely disturbed
by the failure of the Government to explain the above in the White
Paper."
Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 5
|
| Mr William Cash | |
| Mr David Heathcoat-Amory | Mr David S Borrow
|
| Ms Katy Clark |
| Jim Dobbin |
| Nia Griffith |
| Angus Robertson |
Paragraph disagreed to.
Paragraphs 13 to 19 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 20 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 5, at end add "Of course, the
legal impact of primacy which has been established as a matter
of principle of European Law increases in importance according
to the legal functions to which it is attached. Primacy therefore
has assumed greater importance and effect as the Treaties have
evolved."— (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 6 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Kelvin Hopkins
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 21 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 15 to leave out "concerned"
and to insert "of the clear view". — (Mr William
Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | Noes,6 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Kelvin Hopkins
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Mr Lindsay Hoyle
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 19, After "law"
to insert "and that will amount to fundamental constitutional
change."— (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5
|
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 21, at end to add "The
Committee also notes that future changes to policies within existing
competencies and extensions of QMV and co-decision without calling
a new IGC would tend to prejudice future calls for a referendum
on new Treaties."— (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 22 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 23 read.
Amendment proposed, line 9, at end to insert "She thereby
implied that the Court of Justice would continue to exercise its
jurisdiction over the EU as a whole including, in respect of the
Charter, the UK." —(Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Kelvin Hopkins
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 24 agreed to.
Paragraph 25 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 9, leave out "could be interpreted
as" and insert "is".— (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 16, at end insert "The
Committee further notes that the Minister for Europe conceded
in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the 12th
of September, 2007 that the European Court of Justice would have
jurisdiction in respect of aspects of the CFSP, which is unacceptable."—
(Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 26 to 28 agreed to.
Paragraph 29 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 5, after "characteristics"
to insert "(recalling that the former Foreign Secretary,
Mrs Beckett, told the Committee on the 7th of June,
2007, in the context of the former Prime Minister's phrase referring
to 'the characteristics of a constitution', that the Government
was seeking a 'very different' Treaty from that proposed as the
Constitutional Treaty, which clearly has not been achieved.)"
— (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash | Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 30 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 18 after "consequence"
to insert "it is thought that" — (Mr William
Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5
|
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 19, at end add "The Committee
notes that this abolition of the third pillar would be irreversible,
as it reflects vitally important aspects of UK criminal law and
procedure where in future, the UK does participate in such JHA
measures and under ECA 1972 would be legally binding on the UK.
It is therefore essential to reject these provisions as they stand."
—(Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 8 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Kelvin Hopkins
Mr Lindsay Hoyle
Angus Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 31 agreed to.
Paragraph 32 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 33 and 34 agreed to.
Paragraph 35 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 7, leave out "except
with the UK's agreement" and insert "The Committee requires
clear evidence as to the means which the Government will take
to exclude a European public prosecutor having any role in the
UK." — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5
|
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 36 read and agreed to.
A new paragraph — (Mr William Cash)
— brought up and read, as follows:
"The Committee insists that to avoid any doubt
that the Charter would extend to enable any court to strike down
UK law that the Government must include in any Bill implementing
these provisions the words 'notwithstanding the European Communities
Act 1972' so that no UK or European court could apply the Charter
as against UK law."
Question put, That the paragraph be read a second
time.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5
|
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph 37 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 38 read.
An Amendment made.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 13, after "agree."
to insert "The Committee regards such a collective power
of other national parliaments as amounting to a serious interference
with the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament and rejects
any such proposal for this reason." — (Mr William
Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 20, leave out "is not
helpful to" and insert "obstructs". —
(Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 6 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Kelvin Hopkins
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 39 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 40 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 13, after "scope." to insert
"The Committee therefore objects to the conferring of legal
personality on this scale in the way proposed." — (Mr
William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 13, after, 'scope.' to insert,
"The Committee is concerned at this significant widening
of the ability of the Union to conclude international agreements
binding on the UK." —( Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 6 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Mr Lindsay Hoyle
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 41 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 3, after 'QMV', to insert,
"into at least 50 new areas". —(Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | Noes, 6
|
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Kelvin Hopkins
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Mr Lindsay Hoyle
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 8, at end, to
add, "At present QMV has a more demanding requirement of
74% of the weighted votes in the Council, so the ability of the
UK and most other member states to block unwelcome proposals will
be significantly reduced." —( Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5
|
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 42 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 24, to leave out from "parliaments"
to end of paragraph and add "The Committee considers that
the Government should not allow these provisions to proceed."
— (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 43 and 44 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 45 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 17, to leave out "is
not convinced" and to insert "believes" and after
"conclusion" leave out "does not apply" and
insert "applies". — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 5
|
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 18, to leave out from "Treaty"
to end of paragraph. — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5
|
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 46 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 4, after "text."
to insert "The Committee notes that in the original Constitutional
Treaty the Euratom Treaties were amended and therefore that Constitutional
Treaty itself was an amending Treaty. The Committee draws attention
to this because of the continuous but erroneous assertion by the
Government that the Reform Treaty differs from the Constitutional
Treaty because the Reform Treaty is an amending Treaty as compared
to the Constitutional Treaty. This does not in any way alter the
Committee's proposition that the Reform Treaty is substantially
equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty, even if it is not the
same." — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 6
|
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Mr Lindsay Hoyle
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 6, at end add "The intention
is also to merge the existing Treaties into a Union with a single
personality and to replace the word 'Community' with the word
'Union'." — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 47 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 48 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 9, at end add "Furthermore,
a Declaration does not have the force of law." —(Mr
William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 9
|
Mr William Cash
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Kelvin Hopkins
Mr Lindsay Hoyle
Angus Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 49 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 5, leave out from "constitution"
to end of paragraph and insert "The Committee believes that
the Government both in law and in political judgement has so far
failed to achieve its own expressed intention, subject to the
final negotiations at the IGC on 18th /19th
October 2007, of achieving what the former Foreign Secretary asserted
as a 'very different Treaty' from the original Constitutional
Treaty, nor has it avoided the 'characteristics of a constitution'
which was the phrase used by the former Prime Minister during
the negotiating process. Indeed, far from it, apart from the issue
of the red lines, to which the present Prime Minister is also
committed, the Reform Treaty not only has constitutional characteristics
but these are substantial, indeed fundamental, and alter the structure
of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European
Union and thereby the relationship of the United Kingdom Government
and Parliament to the electorate." —(Mr William
Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 5 |
Mr William Cash
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 50 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 11, leave out "even likely to
be misleading in so far as they might suggest" and insert
"misleading by suggesting". — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Kelvin Hopkins
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 13, leave out
from "must" to end of paragraph and add "accept
that the proposals in the current draft of the Reform Treaty are
the equivalent, if not the same, in terms of constitutional characteristics
and substantial and fundamental constitutional change and that
this must be made clear at the IGC on the 18th/19th October. If
it were the Government's intention to conclude such a Treaty then,
in accordance with the statement of the then Foreign Secretary
on the 7th of June that 'that would require a referendum', the
Committee would expect that the Prime Minister would commit the
Government to holding a referendum on the Reform Treaty. The Committee
notes that the then Government held a referendum in 1975."
— (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5
|
| Mr William Cash
Kelvin Hopkins
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 51 to 55 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 56 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, leave out "possible".
— (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes,2 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 57 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 58 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 4, leave out "It could be argued
that". — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 12, after "generally."
to insert "Therefore we insist on a clear commitment from
the Government that any Bill to implement the Treaty and the Charter
will include a provision stating that the Charter shall not take
effect in UK law notwithstanding the European Communities Act
1972. This would put the matter beyond doubt as the Government
has continuously stated to be its intention.". — (Mr
William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash | Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 59 read, and agreed to.
Paragraph 60 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 7, at end add "In these circumstances,
the Committee insists on a clear commitment from the Government
that any Bill to implement the Treaty and the Charter will include
a provision stating that the Charter shall not take effect in
UK law notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972. This
would put the matter beyond doubt as the Government has continuously
stated to be its intention." — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash | Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 61 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 62 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 4, leave out "would seek more"
and insert "insists on". — (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Kelvin Hopkins
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 10, leave out "would
seek to clarify with the Government what protection there is for
their" and insert "insists that the Government provides"
— (Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes ,2 | Noes, 7 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Kelvin Hopkins
Mr Lindsay Hoyle
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 14, leave out from "charter"
to end of paragraph and insert "In the circumstances, the
Committee insists that the Government commits that any Bill to
implement the Treaty and the Charter will include a provision
stating that the Charter shall not take effect in UK law notwithstanding
the European Communities Act 1972. This would put the matter beyond
doubt as the Government has continuously stated to be its intention.".
—(Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 7 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr Anthony Steen |
Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Kelvin Hopkins
Mr Lindsay Hoyle
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 63 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 64 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 7, after "welcomes the"
to insert "apparent". —(Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 7 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Kelvin Hopkins
Mr Lindsay Hoyle
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 10, at end add "However,
the Committee insists that for the avoidance of doubt a provision
should be included in any Bill implementing the Treaty excluding
the jurisdiction of the ECJ, notwithstanding the ECA 1972."
—(Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 6 |
| Mr William Cash | Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 65 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 66 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 67 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 12, leave out from "acceptable"
to end of paragraph and insert "The Committee insists that
the Government achieves this agreement at the IGC." —(Mr
William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 6 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Mr Lindsay Hoyle
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph 68 read.
Amendment proposed, leave out lines 1 to 19 and insert "The
Committee does not welcome the provisions in the Reform Treaty
on the role of national parliaments because the provisions are
based on the collective vote of all national parliaments in the
EU, which impinges on the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament
to make decisions on European legislative proposals in its own
right. The Committee reaffirms the supremacy of the United Kingdom
Parliament notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972.".
—(Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash | Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 69 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 70 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 8, at end insert "The Committee
regards the Minister's statement as totally inadequate. The legal
obligation proposed on national parliaments must be rejected in
its application to the United Kingdom at least. In this context,
we draw particular attention to footnote 57 and note that the
Committee regards it as inconceivable that the European Court
of Justice should be entitled to adjudicate against the United
Kingdom Parliament." —(Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 7 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Kelvin Hopkins
Mr Lindsay Hoyle
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 71 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 72 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 2, leave out from "we" to
"what" in line 7 and insert "regard the Reform
Treaty as having 'constitutional characteristics' amounting to
at least 'substantial constitutional change' and even 'fundamental
change' of the kind described by the Minister for Europe and the
former Prime Minister." —(Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 2 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash
Kelvin Hopkins | Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 8, at end add "We further
consider that the constitutional changes brought about in the
Reform Treaty are themselves substantial and even fundamental
and alter the structure of the constitutional relationship between
the United Kingdom and the European Union and between the United
Kingdom Government and Parliament and the electorate. For these
reasons and in line with the statement by the former Foreign Secretary
in her evidence to us on the 7th of June that the Government
was seeking a Treaty 'very different' from that proposed as the
'Constitutional Treaty' and the phrase of the former Prime Minister
that 'it should not be proposing the characteristics of a constitution'
and having failed on both counts that a referendum on this Treaty,
if not rejected by the Prime Minister at the IGC, is required
as indicated by the former Foreign Secretary on that occasion."
—(Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | Noes, 5
|
Mr William Cash
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Another Amendment proposed, in line 8, at end add, "In our
view, the UK's 'red line' opt outs do not substantially alter
the overall effect of the Treaty, particularly as the final arbiter
in any dispute over interpretation will be the ECJ." —(Mr
David Heathcoat-Amory.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 5 |
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 73 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 4, at end add, "In our view,
a Bill to implement this Treaty with these provisions relating
to the Charter under Protocol No.7 must be expressed in terms
which clearly exclude the Charter from having effect in United
Kingdom law notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972."
—(Mr William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes,1 | Noes, 6 |
| Mr William Cash | Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Angus Robertson
Mr Anthony Steen
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 74 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 75 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 76 read.
An Amendment made.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 8, leave out
"resisted" and insert 'rejected". —(Mr
William Cash.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | Noes, 7
|
| Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Anthony Steen
| Mr David S Borrow
Ms Katy Clark
Jim Dobbin
Nia Griffith
Kelvin Hopkins
Mr Lindsay Hoyle
Angus Robertson
|
Paragraph 77 read, amended and agreed to.
Annex agreed to.
Resolved, That the Report, as amended, be the Thirty-fifth
Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.
Several Memoranda were ordered to be reported to the House for
printing with the Report.
Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No.134 (Select
committees (reports)) be applied to the Report.
[Adjourned till this day at 1.30 p.m.
| 
