House of Commons - Foreign Affairs

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Third Report

Formal minutes

Wednesday 16 January 2008

Members present:

Mr Fabian Hamilton

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory

Mr John Horam

Mr Eric Illsley

Mr Paul Keetch

Andrew Mackinlay

Mr Malcolm Moss

Sandra Osborne

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

Sir John Stanley

Ms Gisela Stuart

Mr Richard Younger-Ross

Sir John Stanley took the Chair, pursuant to Resolution [14th January].

The Committee deliberated.

Draft Report (Foreign Policy Aspects of the Lisbon Treaty), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Question put, That the Chairman's draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 8

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory

Mr John Horam

Mr Paul Keetch

Andrew Mackinlay

Mr Malcolm Moss

Sandra Osborne

Ms Gisela Stuart

Richard Younger-Ross

Noes, 4

Mr Fabian Hamilton

Mr Eric Illsley

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

Paragraphs 1 to 18 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 19 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 20 to 26 read and agreed to.

Paragraph 27 read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 28 to 34 read and agreed to.

A paragraph —(Richard Younger-Ross) —brought up, read the first and second time, and inserted (now paragraph 35).

Paragraphs 35 and 36 (now paragraphs 36 and 37) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 37 read.

Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out from "process." to the end of the paragraph, and add "Since the German Presidency was required to produce a report for further discussion and not a draft treaty, and in view of repeated assurances about the need for public involvement, the Government should have refused to comply with the compressed timetable whereby less than four days elapsed between first sight of the draft treaty by member states and its adoption by the June 2007 European Council." —(Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph amended and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Andrew Mackinlay)—brought up and read, as follows:

As we will illustrate, due to the lack of clarity in the Treaty's wording and the absence of adequate time for Parliament to give detailed and forensic scrutiny, line by line, to the Treaty's wording and provisions, we can do little more than draw to Parliament's attention the undefined meaning and unclear intention and consequences of some of the Treaty's wording. For instance, there are the matters to which we draw attention at paragraphs 84, 105, 155, 170 and 207 below.

Question, That the paragraph be read a second time, put and negatived.

A paragraph—(Andrew Mackinlay)—brought up and read, as follows:

Question, That the paragraph be read a second time, put and negatived.

Paragraphs 38 to 65 (now paragraphs 39 to 66) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 66 (now paragraph 67) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 3, to leave out "are also sympathetic to" and insert "understand". —(Richard Younger-Ross.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 67 to 74 (now paragraphs 68 to 75) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 75 (now paragraph 76) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out "told us" and insert "argued". —(Andrew Mackinlay.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 76 to 81 (now paragraphs 77 to 82) read and agreed to.

Paragraphs 82 and 83 (now paragraphs 83 and 84) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 84 to 86 (now paragraphs 85 to 87) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 87 (now paragraph 88) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 88 and 89 (now paragraphs 89 and 90) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 90 (now paragraph 91) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 91 to 99 (now paragraphs 92 to 100) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 100 (now paragraph 101) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 101 (now paragraph 102) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 102 (now paragraph 103) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 15, at the end to add ", though it seems very unlikely that such a request would be made without a consensus on the European Council, in line with normal practice.". —(Mr John Horam.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraph 103 (now paragraph 104) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 104 (now paragraph 105) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 105 to 110 (now paragraphs 106 to 111) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 111 (now paragraph 112) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 112 and 113 (now paragraphs 113 and 114) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 114 (now paragraph 115) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 115 and 116 (now paragraphs 116 and 117) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 117 (now paragraph 118) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 5, at the end to add "However this is not in itself a sufficient safeguard for the continued independence of British foreign policy given the qualified majority voting provisions and procedures in the Treaty, and the creation of the European External Action Service (see paragraphs 178 to 190 below)." —(Sir John Stanley.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 118 to 141 (now paragraphs 119 to 142) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 142 (now paragraph 143) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 143 to 152 (now paragraphs 144 to 153) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 153 (now paragraph 154) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 4, leave out from "policy." to the end of the paragraph.—(Mr John Horam.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph amended and agreed to.

Paragraph 154 (now paragraph 155) read and amended.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out "could" and insert "will".—(Richard Younger-Ross.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.

Paragraph 155 (now paragraph 156) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 156 (now paragraph 157) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 8, to leave out from "Treaty" to the end of the paragraph and add "does give the High Representative a more explicit right to speak at the UN Security Council and this is likely to fuel demands for the replacement of EU members of the Security Council with a permanent EU seat."—(Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 10, to leave out from "practice." to the end of the paragraph and add "We also conclude that in the short term it will not undermine the position of the UK in the United Nations generally nor the UK's representation and role as a Permanent Member of the Security Council; the consequences of this provision in the longer term remain to be seen." —(Sir John Stanley.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 157 to 168 (now paragraphs 158 to 169) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 169 (now paragraph 170) read.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the beginning to "Council", in line 3, and to insert "We conclude that the replacement of the rotating Presidency of the European Council with a full-time supranational President will increase continuity of business but will widen the gap between the EU and the public, and do nothing to deliver the instruction in the 2001 Laeken Declaration to bring the EU 'closer to its citizens'."—(Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 170 to 186 (now paragraphs 171 to 187) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 187 (now paragraph 188) read.

Amendment proposed, at the end to add "We recommend that the Government does nothing towards setting up the External Action Service in advance of ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, in order to counter the impression that EU projects proceed regardless of parliamentary or public decisions.".—(Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraph 188 (now paragraph 189) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 189 (now paragraph 190) read and amended.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave out from "above" to the end of the paragraph, and add "Unless or until the Government has detailed its proposals to ensure that Parliament and its committees receive the information to scrutinise—on an ongoing basis—the work of the EEAS, and these have been incorporated into Standing Orders, Parliament should decline to progress the legislation necessary to give effect to the Lisbon Treaty in the UK. It is time that Parliament asserted its right to determine its machinery for ongoing scrutiny of the EEAS and the workings of the EU's institutions and officials generally, in advance of acquiescing in further Treaty change rather than after the event.". —(Andrew Mackinlay.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 1

Andrew Mackinlay

Noes, 11

Mr Fabian Hamilton

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory

Mr John Horam

Mr Eric Illsley

Mr Paul Keetch

Mr Malcolm Moss

Sandra Osborne

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

Ms Gisela Stuart

Richard Younger-Ross

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph , as amended, agreed to.

Paragraphs 190 to 192 (now paragraphs 191 to 193) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 193 (now paragraph 194) read.

Amendment proposed, in line 7, to leave out from "career." to the end of the paragraph.—(Andrew Mackinlay.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Paragraph agreed to.

Paragraphs 194 to 205 (now paragraphs 195 to 206) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 206 (now paragraph 207) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 207 to 212 (now paragraphs 208 to 213) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 213 (now paragraph 214) read, amended and agreed to.

Paragraphs 214 to 217 (now paragraphs 215 to 218) read and agreed to.

Paragraph 218 (now paragraph 219) read, as follows:

Our academic witnesses confirmed unequivocally that the change of name from "Union Minister for Foreign Affairs" to "High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy", plus the two new, UK-inspired, non-legally binding Declarations on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, are the only differences in the foreign affairs field between the provisions of the Constitutional Treaty and those under the Lisbon Treaty. We conclude that there is no material difference between the provisions of the Constitutional Treaty and those under the Lisbon Treaty in the foreign affairs field.

Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out from "Treaty" to the end of the paragraph, and add "We conclude that there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign affairs in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied."—(Sir John Stanley.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 7

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr John Horam
Mr Paul Keetch
Andrew Mackinlay
Mr Malcolm Moss
Ms Gisela Stuart
Richard Younger-Ross
Noes, 5

Mr Fabian Hamilton
Mr Eric Illsley
Sandra Osborne
Mr Greg Pope
Mr Ken Purchase

Question put, That the paragraph, as amended, stand part of the Report.

Paragraph 219 read, as follows:

In Chapter 3 we discussed the Government's foreign policy "red line", and in Chapter 4 we discussed the nature of the Common Foreign and Security Policy under the Lisbon Treaty. There, we concluded that the CFSP was likely to remain intergovernmental, and driven by the Member States. In this context, some of our witnesses discussed whether the Government had secured its foreign policy "red line" in the Lisbon Treaty. Lord Owen told us that he thought "we have reached the absolute maximum of how much we can concede on foreign policy. Any further erosion would be destructive to the concept of an independent foreign policy". Lord Owen did not think that the Government had secured its foreign policy "red line". However, Dr Solana told us that, given the content of the Treaty and the declarations which the UK had secured, "the issues are as safe as you can get". Given our conclusion that the Common Foreign and Security Policy under the Lisbon Treaty is likely to remain an intergovernmental process, we conclude that the Government has secured its foreign policy "red line".

Amendment proposed, in line 3, after "remain" to insert "partly". —(Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 11, to leave out from "get" to the end of the paragraph, and add "We conclude that the fact that the Common Foreign and Security Policy under the Lisbon Treaty is likely to remain an intergovernmental process is not in itself a sufficient safeguard for the continued independence of British foreign policy given the qualified majority voting provisions and procedures in the Treaty, and the creation of the European External Action Service. We further conclude that the Lisbon Treaty is likely over time to result in a diminution in the independence of British foreign policy, and that the Government may well therefore not have secured its foreign policy " red line"."—(Sir John Stanley.)

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Another Amendment proposed, in line 11, to leave out from "get" to the end of the paragraph, and add "We conclude that although substantial elements of the intergovernmental process remain for the Commons Foreign and Security Policy, this is not the same as the retention of an independent foreign policy, which is the Government's 'red line'."—(Mr David Heathcoat-Amory.)

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 2

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Malcolm Moss
Noes, 9

Mr Fabian Hamilton
Mr Eric Illsley
Mr Paul Keetch
Andrew Mackinlay
Sandra Osborne
Mr Greg Pope
Mr Ken Purchase
Ms Gisela Stuart
Richard Younger-Ross

Question put, That the paragraph stand part of the Report.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 5

Mr Fabian Hamilton
Mr Eric Illsley
Sandra Osborne
Mr Greg Pope
Mr Ken Purchase
Noes, 7

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr John Horam
Mr Paul Keetch
Andrew Mackinlay
Mr Malcolm Moss
Ms Gisela Stuart
Richard Younger-Ross

Paragraphs 220 and 221 read and agreed to.

A paragraph—(Andrew Mackinlay)—brought up and read, as follows:

We cannot conclude our Report without reference to the ongoing debate in Parliament and the country as to whether or not the UK's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty should be contingent upon an affirmative vote in a referendum. In its 2005 general election manifesto, the Labour Party said, with reference to the Constitutional Treaty, that "It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British People in a referendum".[541] We note that the Government argues that, unlike the Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty follows the classical method of altering the Union's governance, by amending existing Treaties. The Government believes that this "gradualist" approach ensures that amendments are strictly limited to accommodating those changes in the existing Treaties that are essential as a consequence of the increasing international influence and commitments of the Union, the development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the enlargement of the Union to 27, and the possibility of enlargement to include further countries, namely Turkey and states in the Western Balkans. However, as we have concluded in paragraph 219 above, in the field of foreign policy the Lisbon Treaty is materially the same as the Constitutional Treaty. [542] We conclude that it is not possible to ignore the fact that the Lisbon Treaty is of considerable constitutional importance. We also conclude that notwithstanding the Government's arguments that this is merely an amending Treaty, and that the Lisbon Treaty does not have the features of a Constitution, we are conscious of the fact that this cannot satisfy or assuage the perception of a significant body of public opinion. For this body of public opinion, the Government is making a distinction without a difference. We therefore conclude that the Government should reflect on the fairness of relying on the distinction it draws between the Constitutional Treaty, and the "amending" nature of the Lisbon Treaty, when refusing to submit the latter document to a referendum.

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 2

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory

Andrew Mackinlay

Noes, 8

Mr Fabian Hamilton

Mr Eric Illsley

Mr Paul Keetch

Sandra Osborne

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

Ms Gisela Stuart

Richard Younger-Ross

Another paragraph—(Andrew Mackinlay)—brought up and read, as follows:

We cannot conclude our Report without reference to the ongoing debate in Parliament and the country as to whether or not the UK's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty should be contingent upon an affirmative vote in a referendum. In its 2005 general election manifesto, the Labour Party said, with reference to the Constitutional Treaty, that "It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British People in a referendum".[543] We note that the Government argues that, unlike the Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty follows the classical method of altering the Union's governance, by amending existing Treaties. The Government believes that this "gradualist" approach ensures that amendments are strictly limited to accommodating those changes in the existing Treaties that are essential as a consequence of the increasing international influence and commitments of the Union, the development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the enlargement of the Union to 27, and the possibility of enlargement to include further countries, namely Turkey and states in the Western Balkans. However, as we have concluded in paragraph 219 above, in the field of foreign policy the Lisbon Treaty is materially the same as the Constitutional Treaty. [544] We conclude that it is not possible to ignore the fact that the Lisbon Treaty is of considerable constitutional importance. We also conclude that notwithstanding the Government's arguments that this is merely an amending Treaty, and that the Lisbon Treaty does not have the features of a Constitution, we are conscious of the fact that this cannot satisfy or assuage the perception of a significant body of public opinion. For this body of public opinion, the Government is making a distinction without a difference.

Question, That the paragraph be read a second time, put and negatived.

Another paragraph—(Andrew Mackinlay)—brought up and read, as follows:

Question, That the paragraph be read a second time, put and negatived.

Another paragraph—(Andrew Mackinlay)—brought up and read, as follows:

We cannot conclude our Report without reference to the ongoing debate in Parliament and the country as to whether or not the UK's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty should be contingent upon an affirmative vote in a referendum. In its 2005 general election manifesto, the Labour Party said, with reference to the Constitutional Treaty, that "It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British People in a referendum".[547] We note that the Government argues that, unlike the Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty follows the classical method of altering the Union's governance, by amending existing Treaties. The Government believes that this "gradualist" approach ensures that amendments are strictly limited to accommodating those changes in the existing Treaties that are essential as a consequence of the increasing international influence and commitments of the Union, the development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the enlargement of the Union to 27, and the possibility of enlargement to include further countries, namely Turkey and states in the Western Balkans. However, as we have concluded in paragraph 219 above, in the field of foreign policy the Lisbon Treaty is materially the same as the Constitutional Treaty. [548] We conclude that notwithstanding the Government's arguments that this is merely an amending Treaty, and that the Lisbon Treaty does not have the features of a Constitution, we are conscious of the fact that this cannot satisfy or assuage the perception of a significant body of public opinion. For this body of public opinion, the Government is making a distinction without a difference. We therefore conclude that the Government should reflect on the fairness of relying on the distinction is draws between the Constitutional Treaty, and the "amending" nature of the Lisbon Treaty, when refusing to submit the latter document to a referendum.

Question, That the paragraph be read a second time, put and negatived.

Another paragraph—(Andrew Mackinlay)—brought up and read, as follows:

We cannot conclude our Report without reference to the ongoing debate in Parliament and the country as to whether or not the UK's ratification of the Lisbon Treaty should be contingent upon an affirmative vote in a referendum. In its 2005 general election manifesto, the Labour Party said, with reference to the Constitutional Treaty, that "It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe. We will put it to the British People in a referendum".[549] We note that the Government argues that, unlike the Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty follows the classical method of altering the Union's governance, by amending existing Treaties. The Government believes that this "gradualist" approach ensures that amendments are strictly limited to accommodating those changes in the existing Treaties that are essential as a consequence of the increasing international influence and commitments of the Union, the development of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the enlargement of the Union to 27, and the possibility of enlargement to include further countries, namely Turkey and states in the Western Balkans. However, as we have concluded in paragraph 219 above, in the field of foreign policy the Lisbon Treaty is materially the same as the Constitutional Treaty. [550] We conclude that notwithstanding the Government's arguments that this is merely an amending Treaty, and that the Lisbon Treaty does not have the features of a Constitution, we are conscious of the fact that this cannot satisfy or assuage the perception of a significant body of public opinion. For this body of public opinion, the Government is making a distinction without a difference.

Question, That the paragraph be read a second time, put and negatived.

Another paragraph—(Andrew Mackinlay)—brought up and read, as follows:

We are conscious that attitudes and perceptions regarding the UK's membership of the European Union are more varied, and deeper, than those which concern only the contents of the Lisbon Treaty. We conclude that the continuing controversy which occurs as a result can in some instances be debilitating and militate against the UK's best interests, trivialise debate, and frustrate initiative and decision-making. We recommend that the Government consider whether, after more than three decades of membership, there is a case for holding, between now and 2012, a referendum reaffirming the UK's membership of the European Union.

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 4

Mr Eric Illsley

Mr Paul Keetch

Andrew Mackinlay

Richard Younger-Ross

Noes, 8

Mr Fabian Hamilton

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory

Mr John Horam

Mr Malcolm Moss

Sandra Osborne

Mr Greg Pope

Mr Ken Purchase

Ms Gisela Stuart

Another paragraph—(Sir John Stanley)—brought up and read, as follows:

We conclude that the Lisbon Treaty is likely over time to result in a diminution in the independence of British foreign policy. For this reason, coupled with the significant provisions in the Treaty on other subjects, we further conclude that the British Government should not ratify the Lisbon Treaty without the consent of the British people in a referendum.

Question put, That the paragraph be read a second time.

The Committee divided.

Ayes, 3

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr John Horam
Mr Malcolm Moss
Noes, 9

Mr Fabian Hamilton
Mr Eric Illsley
Mr Paul Keetch
Andrew Mackinlay
Sandra Osborne
Mr Greg Pope
Mr Ken Purchase
Ms Gisela Stuart
Richard Younger-Ross