You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Committee Publications > All Select Committee Publications > Commons Select Committees > European Scrutiny > European Scrutiny

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 640-i

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

EUROPEAN SCRUTINY committee

 

 

INSTITUTIONAL REFORM

 

 

Thursday 7 June 2007

MARGARET BECKETT MP, MS SHAN MORGAN and MR ANTHONY SMITH

Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 71

 

 

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.

This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.

 

2.

Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

 

3.

Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.

 

4.

Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.

 


Oral Evidence

Taken before the European Scrutiny Committee

on Thursday 7 June 2007

Members present

Michael Connarty, in the Chair

Mr William Cash

Mr James Clappison

Ms Katy Clark

Jim Dobbin

Nia Griffith

Kelvin Hopkins

Mr Bob Laxton

Mr Anthony Steen

Richard Younger-Ross

________________

Witnesses: Rt Hon Margaret Beckett, MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Ms Shan Morgan, Director, EU, and Mr Anthony Smith, Director, European Political Affairs, Foreign and Commonwealth office, gave evidence.

Q1 Chairman: Can I welcome you, Foreign Secretary, to this meeting? It is the first meeting I have chaired where I have had the privilege of the Foreign Secretary coming before us but I think your predecessor did attend a previous evidence session. What I intend doing is making an opening statement to try to put into context for the people who are here and also those who will read our proceedings exactly why we are holding this evidence session and what we hope to get out of the dialogue which we will have with you. I believe you do not want to make an opening statement. The questions we will ask are designed to elicit the government's position on key issues. In every case, Members may want to ask supplementaries in the light of the Foreign Secretary's answers. One of the Committee's key concerns is the way in which, despite an avowed welcome for 'parliamentary contributions to the debate', the government has resisted every request from the Committee for a statement of its views on what sort of changes there should be to the present institutional arrangements or for a sight of either the Berlin Declaration or the Presidency Progress Report ahead of the relevant European Council meetings. You have also said that you will not publish the government's response to the 12 questions about EU institutional reform and the Constitutional Treaty sent to Member States by the presidency. Instead, the government has repeatedly tried to - the words we have in our text are "fob off"; I think it is in fact to shield from - the House of Commons the answers to the questions that they have been seeking. The mantra has been that "there is no consensus. We will tell Parliament what it is, as and when there is one". The Minister for Europe's 5 December 2006 written statement on the principles that would guide the government's overall approach talks of pursuing British interests, modernisation and effectiveness, consensus, subsidiarity, the use of treaties and openness. Instead of information from the government, sadly we have had to rely upon joint press conferences given by the Prime Minister and his Dutch counterpart after their discussions in London in April and media speculation, which is never helpful in these matters, about the government's view on key issues such as the ending of the rotating six monthly presidency, the definition of a Foreign Office Minister for Europe, possible changes to the voting weights and more use of qualified majority voting on a number of issues. That is the background we feel we have come to this session with. It is of non-transparency, sadly, to the questions we would like the government to answer and I think the country would have liked the government to answer much more publicly before now. The presidency questionnaire to which we referred seemed to be concerned with securing only cosmetic changes to what has been referred to as the Constitutional Treaty to make it more acceptable. What is the government's view on the approach taken? Is that the approach? What is the government's view on that approach if it is the approach that has been taken?

Margaret Beckett: I hear what you say. I take entirely of course the Committee's concerns. I do understand that for example you would have liked to have earlier sight of the Berlin declaration. If I may say so, so would we, but we are in the hands of the presidency of the day, as ever, and we have to work within the structures, agreements and understandings of the European Union. You mention the questionnaire, the document circulated by the presidency, and you have read into it - I can sort of see why you have - the thought that maybe this was meant to create the impression that there would just be cosmetic changes. I do not know what the original purpose was of sending round these questions but they have played really no role in whatever discussion there has been, which is why we have resisted being drawn on some of the content because, should negotiations begin which no doubt at some point they will, some of the answers to these questions would be an issue of the British Government's negotiating stance. This document was sent round. My own impression of it is that it was meant to try and get people to think about what the position of other Member States might be, what they could live with, et cetera, but it has not I think I am right in saying played any real part in the discussion. At no point have those felicitously called our focal points been invited to address these questions or to answer them. It has just lain on the table. I really cannot tell you what the original purpose of it was but whatever it was I am not sure it has served it.

Chairman: I think I understand the process that you outline.

Q2 Mr Cash: I asked the Prime Minister at a certain point during the last two years, at a time before the Second Reading of the Bill which your party voted for to implement the whole of the Constitutional Treaty, which obviously I opposed, whether or not there was fundamental change in the arrangements. He said no. Subsequently, I suspect because he came to the conclusion that perhaps some of us were right in saying that there were fundamental changes, he then agreed to have a referendum. Given the fact that now the proposals under negotiation must surely involve, as they stand, the question of the repeal of the existing European Union and EC treaties which were embedded in the existing constitutional arrangements, which your government has signed and which your party has voted for in the House of Commons, would you now confirm that the Constitutional Treaty as such is dead? That is the simple question: is it now dead?

Margaret Beckett: I speak from memory but I think I am right in saying that the Prime Minister has indeed indicated that he came to the view that there should perhaps be a referendum on the original Constitutional Treaty, if I can call it that, because he came to the view that perhaps, yes, there were changes in it that could be considered as somewhat fundamental in the relationship between the UK and the EU.

Q3 Mr Cash: Which he had originally disputed.

Margaret Beckett: You ask if the treaty is dead. I am not sure whether it is helpful to consider whether the treaty is dead or not. Simply, there is no proposal to bring back the Constitutional Treaty in its original form and I think we are on record at various levels as saying that were such a proposal made we would continue to take the view that that would require a referendum. You speak about the wider negotiations. I can completely understand why the Committee will be probably sceptical and certainly impatient but I have to tell the Committee that there have been nothing that you could call wider negotiations. I referred to this area of discussion and debate in the House the other day in terms analogous when we talked about frozen conflicts. This is a frozen debate. It remains the case that there is no consensus, as far as we are aware. It remains the case that there are areas of considerable disagreement. It remains the case that nothing that you could really call negotiations have taken place, which is why the government's negotiating position has not changed.

Q4 Chairman: What we are particularly seeking is some kind of assurance that what is not on the table is a proposal to repeal any of the existing EU or EC treaties, because that was clearly planned by the Constitution.

Margaret Beckett: I do not want to mislead you. I think it would be accurate - please somebody kick me if I am not phrasing this quite correctly - to say that there is nothing on the table. I think it is very unlikely, by the way, that something will come back that will propose repealing the existing treaties but I cannot tell you that it will not because there is at present nothing on the table.

Q5 Mr Cash: You know that the European Parliament this morning has voted by 469 votes to 141 to adopt the proposals of the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, which brings back literally everything including the new primacy of the European law, the Charter of Fundamental Rights - in fact, the entire shooting match? I hope you can confirm to me that there are no Labour Members who voted for that proposal.

Margaret Beckett: I have absolutely no idea how Members of the European Parliament voted.

Chairman: Or Conservative Members, I would imagine.

Q6 Mr Cash: They had better not.

Margaret Beckett: I refrained from taking you up on your observations about our party voting for this because I am very mindful indeed of the fact that most of the things about which you complain were introduced by a Conservative government.

Q7 Mr Cash: Not by me.

Margaret Beckett: I have not forgotten that.

Q8 Jim Dobbin: If there were to be a new treaty and if the new treaty was an amended treaty, could you possibly outline what parts of the existing EU and EC treaties might be changed and in what respects?

Margaret Beckett: I cannot, to be honest, because in these present rather peculiar and difficult circumstances we have been quite determined to keep our powder dry. We have continued to say quite succinctly, I think, that what we would look for is a treaty which is very different from that proposed as the Constitutional Treaty for something that was in a perfectly understandable and straightforward, historical lineage, an amending treaty. It should be very different from the Constitutional Treaty proposals and, to use the phrase of the Prime Minister which I find quite helpful, it should not be proposing the characteristics of a Constitution. That is where we have hung our hats and where we stay.

Q9 Richard Younger-Ross: The Foreign Secretary very carefully used the words "meaningful negotiations". I am wondering if you used the words twice whether negotiations preclude discussions. Can you confirm whether there have been discussions about these matters, although they might not be negotiations?

Margaret Beckett: There has been a certain amount of exchange of view in which we have made exactly the kinds of points that I have just made to Mr Dobbin. Maybe it would be helpful if I just tried to say something a bit more general to the Committee. When I refer to it as a frozen debate, I mean that almost literally. In so far as the matter is ever mentioned and there are exchanges on it, it is usual for someone to say that 18 Member States have ratified the Constitutional Treaty or sometimes to refer to the fact that 21 or 23 of them would ratify it; and therefore it is for those who have a problem to tell everybody else what the problem is. That is about it really. I ventured to say to some of my colleagues not so long ago when this kind of passing reference was being made for some reason that it seems to me that some of our colleagues are in denial about the fact that the Constitutional Treaty in its original form was rejected by the people of France and the Netherlands. Up to this point, I think they mostly still are in denial. If I did use the word "meaningful" I did not mean it to carry any significance at all, I assure you. There has not been anything that you could really call negotiation and not much that you could really call discussion perhaps because the differences of view are still so considerable that it is hard for people to identify the ground on which that discussion might take place.

Q10 Richard Younger-Ross: The media has been full of comment that the presidency wished to do this and wished to do that. I find it incredible that all this should be going on in the media - what the presidency wishes to do is being implied - and there is not a discussion between our government and the German presidency on these matters.

Margaret Beckett: What perhaps you are overlooking is that a lot of that comment relates to process. It is clear that the German presidency, for example, very much wishes to reach some kind of agreement in June. They also - I think this is in the public domain - very much wish for that to be a process of agreement that can be so clear that it would allow a quite short IGC, perhaps in the Portuguese presidency. That certainly is something that has been aired. What the prospects are of such an agreement frankly at this moment in time I cannot tell the Committee.

Q11 Chairman: Do you not think, given that we set out to reconnect Europe to the people of Europe, that the six months in which it seems the secrecy has been on primacy and not public, open debate and we have had to rely upon brave souls like the Prime Minister of the Netherlands to try and lay out his contribution to the European Parliament, that has damaged the credibility of the whole process? For those of us who are very pro-Europe and pro-EU as a structure for the politics and the citizenship of Europe, do you not think it has been completely damaging in the last five months for people to see this frozen negotiation? What they really mean is they see negotiations going on in secret, behind a Chinese wall, denying them any access to the process.

Margaret Beckett: They are not.

Q12 Chairman: Maybe they should be. Maybe the Secretary of State should have been negotiating these things in public and telling the public what the issues of debate were.

Margaret Beckett: I can completely understand and I feel fairly confident that I will have a similar exchange in the not too distant future with the Foreign Affairs Committee when I give evidence to them. I can completely understand that colleagues in the House find it surprising and are perhaps even somewhat sceptical about the fact that really there has not been the kind of discussion and negotiation on which Members wish to be informed.

Q13 Mr Cash: Is this really a new Berlin wall, in other words?

Margaret Beckett: That will probably serve well for tomorrow morning's Today programme rerun, but I am not sure that I would so characterise it.

Chairman: I think you have the concerns, I do not think just of this Committee and of Parliament but of the people of the UK at this moment.

Q14 Mr Clappison: One of the things on the table in the respect that there are other parties to these negotiations who desire it - we know that they desire it - is the transfer of third pillar competences covered by intergovernmental cooperation to first pillar competences which are covered by the Community rules and in particular I am thinking of judicial and police cooperation. The Home Affairs Committee has looked at this. They have said that moving the criminal law from the third pillar to the first pillar would be a major constitutional change which is not justified. We know what other parties want on this. Do we agree with it?

Margaret Beckett: I am aware of the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee and I understand the point that such a proposal would be indeed a major change. However, it is not clear. Part of the difficulty I have in giving evidence to the Committee is it is not clear whether any such proposal remains on the table or will remain on the table. It is and has been from the beginning a matter of some controversy.

Q15 Mr Clappison: Do we agree with it?

Margaret Beckett: We would not agree to anything that we believed was not in Britain's national interest. We can see the argument for greater cooperation in some of these areas, as for example led to the introduction of the European arrest warrant which I think quite famously helped us in detaining one of the people who was accused of some of the terrorist acts in this country last year. I accept that the issue of such a transfer would be a very different matter.

Q16 Mr Clappison: I agree with you that that has been a success under the present cooperation but you know that there are parties in this who want to go much further and transfer the matters which are dealt with under that part of the Constitution, the third pillar, into the first pillar where it will be subject to all of the Community rules, the European Court of Justice and qualified majority voting and it could result in criminal law being made for this country through that method. Do you accept that that is constitutionally significant because that is what is on the table.

Margaret Beckett: You say it is on the table. Actually, as far as I know, it is not on the table. We do not know what is on the table at present.

Mr Cash: It is a joke. You do not even know as Foreign Secretary what is going on.

Q17 Chairman: Please show some discipline.

Margaret Beckett: May I say in response to that it is not that I do not know what is going on. It is because nothing is going on.

Q18 Mr Laxton: Can I be a little bit specific because there continues to be talk of the need for an EU Foreign Minister. How do you see that working within the existing constitutional arrangements and the arrangements between Member States, the Council of Ministers and the Commission?

Margaret Beckett: Again, this is something that is proposed in the Constitutional Treaty. Whether it will be part of the proposals that are put forward now remains in question. All Member States are sensitive about their role in foreign affairs and certainly we have been repeatedly on record as saying we regard this as an intergovernmental matter. Equally though, greater cooperation sometimes can be extremely beneficial. I am quite mindful for example of the fact that in the discussions that we have been having as the EU three plus three with the government of Iran about nuclear power that the emissary who has been conducting those negotiations on behalf of all six of us has indeed been Xavier Solana, who is presently the high representative. I would assume that the thinking behind the original proposal was that some similar arrangement would be considered but whether that is part of any proposals that will be put forward remains to be seen.

Q19 Mr Clappison: You said a moment ago that this was in some doubt but, as far as this is concerned, we know that it is something which is desired by the parties because the German questionnaire, which I believe you have admitted receiving, spells it out. Can I remind you what the German questionnaire says on this briefly? It has asked you the question: "How do you assess in that case the proposal made by some Member States to use different terminology without changing the legal substance for example with regard to the title of the treaty, the denomination of EU legal acts and the Union's Minister for Foreign Affairs?" Do you agree with the idea of the Union's Minister for Foreign Affairs?

Margaret Beckett: First of all, I did not dispute the fact that there are Member States and indeed perhaps other players who hold the view that this would be desirable. I never have disputed it. The fact is it is a matter of intense controversy. There are others who disagree equally strongly. I can only repeat that it is not clear at present that such a proposal will be put forward and I believe it is very much in the interests of those who wish to see British national interests protected and preserved that we do not carry out our negotiations in public, especially when they have not started.

Q20 Mr Clappison: Do you agree with the idea of a European Foreign Minister as set out in the questionnaire? You must know your own position.

Margaret Beckett: I am sorry. Until it is clear that such a proposal is being put forward and in what form I will reserve my comments. We can put forward all sorts of theoretical propositions but what is important is what is practically proposed and at the moment nothing is practically proposed.

Q21 Chairman: We may be dancing on the head of a pin here. I am reading Article I-28 of the treaty that exists at the moment and it says under section two that the Union Minister for Foreign affairs shall conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy. It is already in the treaty that there is a Union representative of foreign affairs. What they call them may become the controversy, not what the purpose of the post is.

Margaret Beckett: I assume that is the underpinning for Xavier Solana's present role which he carries out very effectively.

Q22 Mr Cash: It still puzzles and worries me that in the context of what you have just said there appears to be - I would just like to dig a little deeper on this; I am sure you will be completely transparent about this - when you say that you do not know the details because we have not started negotiations, in all previous treaty negotiations of which I have been aware - I have been certainly aware of them since 1985 - it would seem to me that the government does have negotiating positions through Coreper, through the Foreign Office, through the Sherpas, et cetera. It seems to me that in this case in the context, for example, of the enhanced role - I take the Chairman's point about the Foreign Minister in this context - you do seem to be - I do not say this in any critical sense because you cannot be blamed, if I can put it in very generous terms, for not knowing something that you have not been told about. We know that there are secret negotiations going on, on a party to party basis; that there appears to be a divide and rule policy. I would just like to invite you to give some indication as to how it is that you are not in possession of the sort of information that we would have assumed the Foreign Secretary of this country would be in possession of in all other previous negotiations at a similar stage in the run up to a proposed treaty.

Margaret Beckett: You say to me, "We know that there are party to party negotiations." There are not. There have not been. There has been a process whereby Member States were occasionally invited to give some views. There have not been negotiations.

Q23 Mr Cash: You do not know what is going on.

Margaret Beckett: There is nothing going on.

Q24 Mr Cash: Is that not pretty astonishing? You have come here to discuss these matters.

Margaret Beckett: I came here because you asked me to come and give evidence. If you had asked me whether there was very much I could tell you, I could have told you no before I came here.

Mr Cash: That is amazing.

Q25 Chairman: What we used to call Sherpas are now called focal points and inanimate objects have become humans. It is like the big ask. Questions become a big ask. I am not sure who has changed the English language but the focal points, I believe, are human beings. What are they discussing?

Margaret Beckett: Not very much.

Q26 Mr Cash: It is a mad hatter's tea party.

Margaret Beckett: I have read all manner of things and all manner of fascinating articles about the negotiations that are no doubt going on; the Sherpas are beavering away and there will be a text with brackets. No.

Q27 Chairman: In 2004, I am reminded that Her Majesty's Government insisted that they must have an emergency brake process if there was any move to move matters to qualified majority voting. Is that still the position of the government as a backstop?

Margaret Beckett: In the dialogue and discussion that was held then, that was one of the things that was thought of as a way of mitigating some of the problems that people perceived. I go back again to the fact that it is not at all clear what will come forward. If I can be quite blunt with the Committee, I think it all depends really on the degree to which the presidency wants to try to get an agreement in June. There are very disparate points of view still. We have not had the report from the presidency. We have not really had much even in the way of hints from the presidency, but it is far from clear to me that there is emerging a substantial common ground of consensus on which the presidency can build, which may be why we have not heard very much.

Q28 Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister might not be able to tell us very much about the people that are in rooms not talking to each other. In answer to a previous question regarding the position of a Foreign Minister, you declined to say whether you were in favour or not. You might not be able to tell us what the European policy may be, but can you not give us some hint as to whether in principle there is any way, shape or form in which you would accept there being a European Foreign Minister? I would have thought that was a fairly straightforward, yes or no answer.

Margaret Beckett: No. This is one of the things that one gives considerable thought to, as to how one handles the situation in which we presently find ourselves. One of the conclusions that I have come to is that the less I say about what we might in principle accept and what we might not, the more I preserve the maximum amount of negotiating space to resist anything that I think is not in Britain's national interest. I appreciate that is unsatisfactory for the Committee and I apologise to you for that but, since we are so much in uncharted waters, not knowing what will be proposed, the more I say, "We could live with this. We cannot live with that", the more I am giving away my negotiating room, which I am always deeply reluctant to do.

Q29 Richard Younger-Ross: You understand that that is one of the frustrations of these Committees, that there is little this Committee can do or say to influence what you are going to do and then negotiate but be told it is a fait accompli afterwards.

Margaret Beckett: I understand the frustration that is being expressed and I completely understand why the Committee would make such an assumption but I think you have assumed a stage in the process that we just are not at.

Q30 Richard Younger-Ross: Maybe you will be further on when you meet the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

Margaret Beckett: Not necessarily.

Richard Younger-Ross: I am on that as well.

Q31 Mr Clappison: I was going to ask what you thought about having a presidency of the European Union in addition to having a European Foreign Minister because that too is on the table, a change from the present arrangements where is a six monthly presidency which is held by the host state to having a more permanent form of presidency in the form of an individual who is somehow chosen, but I think I can make an educated guess as to what your answer is going to be. Never mind. I will hope for the best.

Margaret Beckett: You are absolutely right in predicting what my answer is going to be. Part of the difficulty that all of us have is that we as a government accepted a range of things with varying degrees of enthusiasm or concern in a huge, comprehensive package. Whether or not you share Mr Cash's description of it, that huge and comprehensive package is not now there. That means that the nature of the judgments that you make will be different because you are talking about a set of proposals hopefully of a different style and balance and in a different context and we do not know what they are going to be.

Q32 Mr Clappison: If I may say so with respect, you are not painting a very inspiring picture of the European Union. The Chairman said at the beginning that the slogan which this was launched under was "Bringing Europe closer to its people". At the moment, we are getting the impression that Europe is saying to its people, "We will keep you as far away as possible" because they are not being told anything at all. They are being kept in the dark. This is not going to launch any enthusiasm because a reasonable person might well draw the conclusion from what you are saying that this is all bad and we are just trying to mitigate as much as possible and put the best possible gloss on it. Somebody could come to that conclusion, could they not?

Margaret Beckett: The people of Europe are as well informed as they can be in the sense that they know what their governments said about the Constitutional Treaty and about the various issues within it. They know that there are those who have ratified and those who, no doubt particularly domestically, would express various degrees of enthusiasm for how much of the original proposals should be retained. That is at the moment all there is to know.

Q33 Mr Clappison: Can I ask you something specific about something which has been said in the past? Would you agree that the creation of a European Union Foreign Minister and a European Union President would be constitutionally significant and would amount to a constitutional treaty?

Margaret Beckett: I certainly do not intend to reach any conclusion of that kind until I see what is being proposed and the context and the nature of it.

Q34 Mr Clappison: You have a commitment on this from one of your predecessors. After the no vote in the French and the Dutch referendum, your predecessor almost two years ago today was asked this on the floor of the House of Commons when he was giving a statement about this. He was asked by one of your colleagues who said, "I am sure the Foreign Secretary would agree that among the things that are synonymous with the European Union are back door, back room deals. Will he assure me that one matter that he would certainly submit to a referendum is the creation of a Foreign Minister and a European President?" The Member asking that was from your benches, the hon. Member for Vauxhall. The then Foreign Secretary replied, "Those points are central to the European Constitutional Treaty and of course I see no prospect of their being brought into force save through the vehicle of a Constitutional Treaty." Are you prepared to stand by that commitment which was given by your predecessor?

Margaret Beckett: We are not envisaging, nor would we support, a Constitutional Treaty. We envisage an amending treaty. Whether that is a point of view that will gain support among all our European colleagues remains to be seen.

Chairman: I understand the position you are in. The idea of having a presidency that is not just six months long is so logical that I would defend it to the last breath I have. I think many other people who apply logic rather than prejudice may do the same. I know you are constrained as Foreign Secretary from giving us your personal opinion.

Q35 Jim Dobbin: We have discussed two possible worlds, one a Foreign Secretary and one the possibility of having a permanent presidency. Can I suggest another option to see how you feel about that? That is the alternative of developing a new troika presidency, a team approach, and whether that might possibly give some sustainability to those independent nations that make up the European Union.

Margaret Beckett: I know that part of the proposal in the Constitutional Treaty was indeed the formation of a team presidency. There is merit, I believe, in such an idea of different presidencies working together. Under the present structure as a matter of fact - I am not sure whether we started it; I think maybe we did - we proposed to a couple of our predecessors in the presidency and those who followed us that we should try to draw together at least four or five presidencies in order to plan and develop the work of the Council in a coherent and consistent way through consecutive presidencies. That was something we instigated before we were in the presidency and I believe it is being followed by our successors in the presidency. Something along the lines of a team presidency is possible without the need of a treaty change and is indeed to a degree occurring.

Q36 Chairman: We have just come back from visiting the incoming Portuguese presidency, having visited the German presidency. Anyone who went on that visit saw the synergies and the logical progressions. Everyone from this Committee who went, of all parties, was impressed by the sense of purpose and continuity that was not always there in the past.

Margaret Beckett: I think it was a real weakness of the way in which the Union and the presidency worked in the past that there was a tendency for each presidency to want to start completely afresh, to make its own mark on things, and it rather overlooked the way in which presidencies working together could handle particularly difficult and complex dossiers.

Q37 Nia Griffith: If we could turn to the issue of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, perhaps you could clarify for us a little bit the situation as it stands at present. We understand that in the questionnaire the presidency asked Member States if they could accept replacing the full text by a short cross reference having the same legal value. This seems like some sort of restatement of the Constitutional Treaty but what was the government's response to that and where does the government stand on the Charter?

Margaret Beckett: We did not make a response to it; nor indeed were we requested formally to make any kind of response. With regard to the Charter, we are mindful of the fact that the Charter, broadly speaking, reiterates existing rights. We are content for something to reiterate existing rights. It is a different matter for something to extend rights. However, this is one of the aspects of the former Constitutional Treaty which arouses very strong, very different points of view. There are Member States, as I think the flavour of what is said in the questionnaire conveys, who are very attached to the importance of the Charter. There are others who are less so.

Q38 Nia Griffith: For example, the Czech Republic's view which is said to be taking the European Convention on Human Rights as opposed to having the Fundamental Charter. Would that be a view that you would have some sympathy for?

Margaret Beckett: It is something the Czech Republic has indicated is a point of view they would take but again we would judge this issue on its merits as it comes along, if it does.

Q39 Nia Griffith: As we have our own Human Rights Act, do you feel that in a way this is not an area which it is particularly appropriate to be pushing further with EU Member States?

Margaret Beckett: The Charter reiterates existing rights. With regard to the ECHR, as you say, we are involved as I think every Member States has endorsed the ECHR. There is an argument to say that it is something the EU as a whole could accede to but there could potentially be legal complexities because different Member States have slightly different approaches. That obviously is something that could raise concerns.

Q40 Mr Cash: On the question of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, you say that it would reiterate the existing arrangements.

Margaret Beckett: It does reiterate them.

Q41 Mr Cash: I have to say it does not because the European Convention on Human Rights is a duplication of Strasbourg, whereas the Charter of Fundamental Rights, even under Sarkozy's proposals which would apparently turn it into a declaration, would in any case according to advice we have received in this Committee from eminent QCs, as I said in The Times the other day, amount to it falling into the framework of adjudication by the European Court of Justice. That of course would make an enormous difference. It is not just a reiteration; it is a completely different change in the jurisprudence. When the questionnaire from Angela Merkel suggests that we should put in something having the same legal value, it is really just a plain deceit on the Member States. It may be that you are not taken in by it - I trust not, though I was a bit worried by your response to the question you were previously asked - but the bottom line is that we must repudiate any suggestion surely of the Charter becoming, according to the European Parliament this morning, an indispensable part of the proposed new treaty, because they have just voted by 469 to 141 to include it. Are you going to repudiate the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is the core question here, because otherwise you get yourself into the most enormous legal bear trap?

Margaret Beckett: I can only repeat that what we would support is a Charter of Fundamental Rights that brings together existing rights, whether they are found in the ECHR, in treaties or elsewhere.

Q42 Mr Cash: You would support it?

Margaret Beckett: We would support one that brought together in one place existing rights. That is something existing, not something new. Whether any such proposals will come forward - and I am happy to say I have no responsibility for the decisions of the European Parliament.

Q43 Mr Cash: You accept that the European Court of Justice would adjudicate on the Charter, even if it was a declaration?

Margaret Beckett: I accept that this is a point of view that people hold and there are concerns about it. Whether this is an issue that will arise is yet another matter which remains to be discerned.

Q44 Chairman: One of the beginnings of the discussion about enlargement was institutional difficulties. It is clear that the Polish and Czech governments have come out very strongly and say they favour changes to the voting weights in the Parliament. Portugal opposes those changes, but surely on something like this the government has a public position? What is it?

Margaret Beckett: To be perfectly honest, we could live with either outcome because if there is no double majority voting then we keep the voting weight that we have now. If it were to be introduced, then there is an argument about it. It is suggested that it would somewhat increase our voting weight from 8.4 to 12.2 but also there are slight differences in the way in which majorities would be triggered and I think on balance our view is that any change would be broadly neutral.

Q45 Chairman: For the UK?

Margaret Beckett: Yes, for the UK.

Q46 Chairman: Was this not all about making Europe more acceptable, not just looking after the little interests of our own government's voting weight?

Margaret Beckett: I thought that you were asking me about our view of the Polish and Czech concerns. There are those who feel strongly that they wish to reopen that particular issue. There are also others, not just the Portuguese, who it is already clear would have grave concerns about that, so again whether that will fly remains to be seen.

Q47 Kelvin Hopkins: Do you agree with those such as the Czech Republic, Poland and the Netherlands, who we understand are proposing that there should be measures to strengthen subsidiarity, proportionality and the division of competences between the European institutions and Member States? Does the government support the idea of repatriating powers to Member States if one third or a simple majority of national parliaments agree?

Margaret Beckett: I think the only people who have proposed repatriating competences are the Czechs. One of the things I thought probably everybody - perhaps even you, Mr Cash - would welcome in the Constitutional Treaty was the strengthening of subsidiarity and the greater role for national parliaments.

Q48 Mr Cash: If it was ever going to happen.

Margaret Beckett: If that were proposed, that is certainly something for which we would be likely to have sympathy but we do not quite know whether that is part of any package that would be put forward.

Q49 Chairman: In terms of the public statements, I was very impressed by the ability and the willingness of the Dutch Prime Minister to go to the European Parliament and lay out some of his concerns and make some suggestions, one of which was to bring back in the red card where, if one half of the national parliaments thought that a proposal from the Commission was breaching subsidiarity, it would have to be withdrawn, which was one of the proposals that was put forward and I believe would have been supported by our Committee in a Convention but it was not carried in the Convention. What we got was a yellow card, where the Commission would be asked to look again but they would of course look again and do what they wanted anyway unless there was a red card. It seems there is a very strong move towards the national parliaments. It is not necessarily repatriating; it is just not being willing to give up subsidiary issues to the Commission. Is that not something that our government sees some sense in?

Margaret Beckett: I think I am right in saying that there was a proposal from the Czech Republic to be able to repatriate.

Q50 Chairman: That is not quite repatriation but it is giving a firm balance towards the parliaments.

Margaret Beckett: We have always expressed the view that there ought to be strong subsidiarity and we have certainly always expressed the view that a greater role for national parliaments is desirable. Whether or not we get into the territory of red cards, yellow cards or the precise detail and so on again remains to be seen, but the principle that national parliaments should have a greater role and information is something that I would hope no one would disagree with.

Mr Cash: Can you give me one example where ----?

Q51 Kelvin Hopkins: If it did come about that we could repatriate some powers, have you any suggestions? I have a few suggestions of my own which you may have heard in the Commons before - for example, agriculture policy. If agriculture policy was repatriated, at a stroke we would get rid of the fiscal transfer distortions, all the problems we have with the budget ourselves and it would release a lot of those tensions that exist in the Union at the moment. Indeed, if there were powers like that repatriated, it might even make the British people and myself rather less sceptical about the whole business.

Margaret Beckett: There are more ways than one of dealing with the fiscal transfers but while I understand the point if we were to move out of the area where there was a common policy for agriculture across the European Union there might be even greater distortion, lack of competitiveness and problems in dealing with this field than there are now. I do not say that lightly.

Q52 Mr Clappison: One of the things that does concern Members of the Committee is fishing policy and there was a concern that the European Union was going to increase its competence over fishing by excluding the national competences, a matter of interest for our Scottish Nationalist colleagues. What is the Government's view on that?

Margaret Beckett: I am sorry. It is far from clear that any proposals along those lines are likely to be in the package that is put forward, unless the worst fears of Mr Cash and Mr Clappison are fulfilled and somebody tries to re-offer us the whole Constitutional Treaty as was.

Q53 Mr Cash: On the question of repatriation and the acquis communautaire, as you know, the future Prime Minister has made a number of points about the necessity to maintain and to ensure that we have economic competitiveness. In order to achieve that and the regulatory burdens that come out of the European Union, I am sure you would acknowledge that we either have to get all the other Member States to agree or, if not, to achieve his objectives or to achieve the objectives of any government in the national interest, we would need to make a decision. Either we accept the status quo because others would not allow us to become economically competitive, or we would have to override the 1972 Act and require the Law Lords and the other judiciary to obey the latest Westminster Act. As you know, I put forward this proposal which was supported by the Conservative Party in both Houses of Parliament last year. Could you tell me whether the government, as you represent it now, would rule that out even if it meant that we could not achieve economic competitiveness?

Margaret Beckett: It is a rather sweeping set of statements, if I may say so. Certainly I do not take the view, speaking personally as Foreign Secretary, that our economic competitiveness is automatically undermined by decisions that are taken in the European Union.

Q54 Mr Cash: Even though it costs £80 billion a year?

Margaret Beckett: For example, I well recall when I was at the DTI pushing through an agreement on restricting state aid precisely because of its impact on British competitiveness.

Q55 Kelvin Hopkins: I have a shopping list of those competences which perhaps ought to be repatriated to national parliaments, one of which is fishing. Would it not be a helpful suggestion if those land locked countries with no interest whatsoever should not vote on the common fisheries policy? What about aid?

Margaret Beckett: Since we have just persuaded some of them, I rather think, to join the Whaling Commission I am not sure that I can afford to agree to that.

Q56 Kelvin Hopkins: Another area is international aid where one could not call it a competence but it is an incompetence that the European Union is notoriously bad at international aid. We are much better at it and perhaps if Member States looked after their own international aid arrangements it might help the poorer parts of the world rather more than the present arrangements.

Margaret Beckett: Speaking for myself, I have some understanding and sympathy with the point that you make and have had for many years. Despite the staunch defence mounted by Mr Cash of his party's position, that is something that disappeared a very long time ago. It has long therefore been the case that, because we do give a substantial part of our aid through the European Union, it is advisable to try to make that system as effective as possible. I was, I think I am right in saying, very shortly after we joined the European Community, as it then was, first a special adviser and then a parliamentary private secretary in what was then ODA, so I have some sympathy with the point of view that you express. However, we joined the European Union and the British people reaffirmed that in 1975. That is the law.

Q57 Mr Cash: Let us have a referendum.

Margaret Beckett: We did have a referendum on it, unlike you.

Chairman: Mr Cash, please resist the temptation to get a dialogue going. We are not in the House. We are not trying to make little interventions to go on the record. We are trying to get some evidence here.

Q58 Mr Laxton: The UK has traditionally favoured further enlargement. I am pleased to say that as a nation we have been a real driver for that. Would you agree that a new treaty should incorporate the Copenhagen criteria and make it clear that further enlargement would be permitted only where applicants were clearly in compliance with those new provisions? There is a certain amount of evidence in some cases that in the past they have not been compliant. Is the UK opposed to adding any further conditions to those laid out in the Copenhagen criteria?

Margaret Beckett: There has not been any discussion about adding to the Copenhagen criteria. I think it is just the Netherlands that has raised the idea, in a new amending treaty, because they like us believe there should be a different kind of treaty and an amending treaty, that maybe that treaty should include the Copenhagen criteria. Without getting drawn into the issue of the merits of the proposal per se I would simply say that our general inclination is, because we believe this is least likely to cause even more difficulty than already exists, perhaps it is unwise to seek to add things to what was already considered in the Constitutional Treaty. It is already quite enough for people to try and consider what parts of the formal Constitutional Treaty proposals they would wish to retain, if they wished to retain any, without getting into new territory and saying, "While we are at it, why don't we add something?" My general inclination, almost as a matter of negotiating technique, is that opening up new issues that are not already part of this mix might not be very smart.

Q59 Chairman: Can I ask a question which is rather close to my heart on energy policy? I recall during the Convention that there was a proposal to have a clause on energy which I believe would have prevented us, should the competence have moved to the Commission, from signing a treaty with Norway which is now delivering 20% of the UK's gas, because the competence to agree such bilateral arrangements would have fallen to the Commission and not been allowed for a nation state. What, if anything, would you like to see on energy policy in any treaty that may come forward that would be more relevant to the needs of the UK?

Margaret Beckett: Without being drawn particularly into any detail, I do not myself find particularly attractive the notion that we might be trying to add to some of the things that were already under consideration. I think we are in enough trouble as it is, if I can be quite blunt about it, and I am mindful of the fact that in the area of energy and indeed climate change the European Union has continued to work, despite not having some new treaty arrangements and so on. That encourages me to think that this is not something that is a problem that we need to deal with at the present time.

Q60 Nia Griffith: You know better than any of us the importance of international agreements on climate change. Would you see any role at all in an amended treaty for something on climate change, given that it is so impossible to make progress as one country alone?

Margaret Beckett: It is impossible to make progress as one country alone, but we have made considerable progress as the European Union, as indeed the spring Council agreement demonstrated. Yes, you are right. I do see very much the importance of this issue but it can all be done, is being done and has been done within existing treaties.

Q61 Kelvin Hopkins: Finally, Foreign Secretary, an issue of democracy really, connecting the EU with its citizens. In April 2004 during his statement to the House on Europe and the subsequent debate, the Prime Minister said, "Let the people have the final say." I am reminded of a meeting I spoke at with some Finnish journalists some years ago, where I asked why they did not have a referendum in Finland. These journalists were jocular and they said, "Oh no, we could not have a referendum in Finland because the people would vote the wrong way." This is symptomatic, is it not, of the fact that there is a divide between the political elites throughout Europe and the citizens. Sometimes the citizens agree and in some countries they agree more than others, but clearly the referenda in France, Holland and indeed in Sweden over the euro suggest that there is a gulf between the citizens and their governments and it is sometimes a unanimity of view between the different parties of governments as well in parliaments. There is this gap. Is that not a serious problem and is it not time that the European Union started to listen more to its people and tried to build links with its people?

Margaret Beckett: The conversation you report, Mr Hopkins, I recall having an extremely similar conversation with a German colleague about 30 years ago but all I can say to you is quite simply that it is part of the history and tradition of the different Member States of the European Union that there are some who have always used the referendum as a political tool and in consequence have very, very different parliamentary and legislative arrangements from those that pertain in this country. I prefer our model.

Q62 Mr Cash: You mentioned the referendum in 1975 so, by definition, your own party, and I wholeheartedly endorse this, was in favour of a referendum then and, as you know I have campaigned for a referendum, the Maastricht Referendum, we got 750,000 signatures for that one; my own party turned it down. Nonetheless, there are those of us who persist, as the Labour Party did in the past, in insisting that a referendum is a good idea. Given the fact that is the case, do you not agree first that it is a good idea in principle to have a referendum on a treaty of this importance, which we all acknowledge, and, secondly, do you agree with the other 58 Conservative colleagues who have signed up to my Early Day Motion proposing that we should have a referendum on all the existing treaties?

Margaret Beckett: First, Mr Cash, yes, you are right that the only national referendum, I think I am right in saying, we have ever had was the referendum in 1975. The then Labour Government thought it was right to have such a referendum because it was undoubtedly the case that it was a change of massive constitutional significance when the United Kingdom joined the European Union. No subsequent treaty has ever been on a similar scale, and no subsequent treaty has ever attracted a referendum. I find myself not attracted to the proposition that making treaty arrangements without a referendum is a luxury that only Conservative governments are allowed.

Q63 Mr Cash: If I may say finally, Foreign Secretary, of course the Bill implementing the principle of the last Constitutional Treaty two years ago did include a provision for a referendum, so we are down to the question of whether or not the proposals which come forward, which by your own acknowledgement are as yet unclear to you, could require a referendum, depending upon what provisions emerge from the discussions, and of course the intervention, hopefully, of future Prime Minister Brown.

Margaret Beckett: We have made it clear that we would not feel able to accept a new Constitutional Treaty. The basis of the British Government's approach, and it is not only the British Government, is that any treaty that now comes forward should be an amending treaty. Yes, you are right, the proposal for a referendum was attached to the Constitutional Treaty. The Constitutional Treaty is not before us and it is not clear that it will be.

Richard Younger-Ross: You may remember, Foreign Secretary, that of course there was a motion passed in this House in favour of a referendum in Maastricht, moved by my colleagues in the Liberal Democrats in the early 1990s. I do not know whether Mr Cash voted for it or not at the time.

Mr Cash: I think it was actually probably my proposal.

Q64 Richard Younger-Ross: You used the term "whole package" before and in response to Mr Cash you have just indicated that this is just an amending treaty.

Margaret Beckett: I indicated that is what we are asking for. We do not yet have any proposals.

Q65 Richard Younger-Ross: If it is not just an amending treaty, would you stick to your party's promise that there will be a referendum?

Margaret Beckett: We are arguing for an amending treaty that does not have the characteristics of a constitution. If it does not have the characteristics of a constitution then it does not thereby qualify on the grounds that we agreed in 2004, or whenever it was, for a constitutional referendum.

Q66 Richard Younger-Ross: What makes it have that quality of a constitution because having been to Portugal and spoken to the Portuguese they will have?

Margaret Beckett: That is an issue that we will have to judge when we see what proposals come forward, Mr Younger-Ross. At the moment we do not even know what will be proposed, never mind what will be acceptable to the bulk of Member States.

Q67 Richard Younger-Ross: So there is no commitment?

Margaret Beckett: There are no proposals, I have said that.

Mr Clappison: Common ground has emerged in the last several questions that the Prime Minister agreed to a referendum originally back in 2004 because of the constitutional nature of this proposal.

Mr Cash: Fundamental change.

Q68 Mr Clappison: Fundamental change, very significant constitutional implications. I seem to remember as well when the Prime Minister was asked if we would have a referendum if other countries voted no he said that we were going to have a referendum in any event, the referendum should go ahead in any event, but that has not happened even though the countries have voted no, we have not had the referendum. The position is now, as you have just said, and as the Prime Minister said earlier when he was with the Dutch Prime Minister, what seems to be the determining thing as far as you are concerned is if you decide that this has the characteristics of a Constitutional Treaty. Who amongst you will decide whether or not it has the characteristics of a Constitutional Treaty?

Margaret Beckett: It is the job of Government to consider what might come forward and to come to a view as to whether or not it has the characteristics of a Constitutional Treaty. That is something that would be discussed collectively within Government should the question arise and be agreed collectively within Government and then put as the Government's position before Parliament and the House.

Q69 Mr Clappison: Can I put this to you, because what adds spice to this situation is that it is slightly different from many other negotiations because we have the Prime Minister negotiating these negotiations on 21 June and he will leave office very shortly after that. Now in this collective decision-making, both before and during, what role is the Prime Minister in waiting, if we can put it that way, because he is clearly the Prime Minister in waiting, going to play in this?

Margaret Beckett: It has been made clear by the Prime Minister that the position he will take and adopt in the discussions which take place at the June Council will be the position of the Government, of which, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a member. Perhaps I could add something which I think colleagues may be slightly overlooking. Whatever is proposed, and if there is agreement which is, I would say, not by any means certain, at the June Council, if that proposal leads to an IGC there will be an IGC itself. If it is accepted and there is an IGC that will be open to the scrutiny that all IGCs are open to and reporting to the House and so on. If a treaty were finally to be agreed and emerge from that, that would go into the process of parliamentary scrutiny and would require parliamentary approval. I think the notion that somehow this is all going to happen on one day in June is flawed.

Q70 Kelvin Hopkins: I think it was Chancellor Merkel who suggested that the way forward was to break the treaty up into small bits and pass it through a bit at a time, and so avoid the need for referenda in any country. Could you give us an assurance that such a cynical sleight of hand will not be acceptable to Britain and that even a treaty in bits will still have to have the support of a referendum to be approved in Britain.

Margaret Beckett: I repeat, Mr Hopkins, we are arguing for not just a shorter treaty but a different treaty which has a different character in that it is an amending treaty and which does not put forward the characteristics of a constitution.

Q71 Chairman: Finally, Foreign Secretary, do you think it might be a useful and, in fact, a positive idea, once the final conclusions do come out at the Council meeting, to publish the criteria by which the judgment of constitutional or not Constitutional Treaty will be judged so that everyone can understand what the Government applies as clear, transparent logic to this process?

Margaret Beckett: If we are in a position where there is any questionable judgment then obviously we will consider such an idea but, as I say, we are a long way from knowing something like that would be required.

Chairman: We look forward to that consideration. Can I close the session on the constitution and thank you, and Mr Smith and Ms Morgan for coming along with you.