Examination of Witnesses (Questions 103-119)
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT,
PATRICK REILLY
AND ANTHONY
SMITH
19 JUNE 2007
Q103[1] Chairman:
Good afternoon, everybody. Before I begin
I ask everybody, particularly members of the public, to switch
off their mobile phones, put them on silent or take the batteries
out if there is a problem. We do not want any interruptions. Thank
you.
Foreign Secretary, I welcome you to this important
session today. We know that you have been very busy—we have
been reading about it in the newspapers—and we are conscious
that the next few days will involve an intense period of negotiation.
Perhaps you could begin by introducing your colleagues and then
give us your take on where we are at the moment before the coming
few days of negotiations. What is the current situation?
Margaret Beckett: Thank you, Mr
Gapes. I think that Anthony Smith has appeared before the Committee
on previous occasions, and Patrick Reilly is one of my more expert
colleagues on the detail. We are hoping that between us we will
be able to deal with your questions.
As to where we are at present, I would make
a couple of points. First, the Committee is probably aware that
this has been quite a long drawn-out process. At present, as is
usual with such events, nothing will be agreed until everything
is agreed. But two shifts that one can detect have taken place.
On the one hand—it may surprise the Committee to learn that
this has been relatively recent—there is now an acceptance
and understanding that those member states that have had and lost
a referendum are not in a position to, and will not, resubmit
the constitutional treaty to their people to be voted on afresh.
That understanding is not welcome to all the members that have
ratified, and has caused concern, but I think that it is now accepted
and understood. Also, there is some indication that there is a
recognition that that may lead to an amending treaty in the conventional
style, rather than to a constitutional treaty. Perhaps I should
emphasise to the Committee at the outset that, for those that
have ratified, the issue is genuinely politically difficult.
When such issues have been referenced or debated
in Council, or if people have touched on them, there has been
a tendency to talk about those member states that have a problem.
I think that it is now realised that actually everybody has a
problem—in particular those such as the Spanish Government,
for example. They had not only a referendum, but a resounding
yes result, and experience real difficulty in being asked to go
back to their people and say, "I know that we told you that
this was all great, but it may not actually happen in quite that
way." That is basically where we are.
With regard to anything more concrete on the
content of an amending treaty, we are no further forward in terms
of detail than we were. I presume that all Committee members know
that there was a dinner of Foreign Ministers on Sunday night—it
was a Council meeting, although a little more informal than usual
such meetings. We talked about the constitutional treaty issues.
We did not talk about them during the normal session of the General
Affairs and External Relations Council on Monday, so the only
discussion was on Sunday night. The presidency produced a report
to facilitate that discussion—on Thursday, I think?
Patrick Reilly: Yes.
Margaret Beckett: The previous
Thursday. The report was extremely short. The front page said
that the issue was difficult and that it was important for the
whole European Union to get it right and so on—that kind
of thing. There were another almost two sides of A4, which, to
summarise them a little cruelly, said, "Some member states
have ratified. They like the constitutional treaty and want the
changes that the constitutional treaty envisaged. There are other
member states, some of which had a referendum and lost, and they
have concerns about the contents of the constitutional treaty,
so there remain considerable disparities of view." That was
about it, so it was on that basis that we had an exchange of the
views of member states on Sunday night.
But I can only say to this Committee what I
said to the European Scrutiny Committee about a week ago; I do
not think that Mr Younger-Ross is here— [Interruption.]
He is; I beg your pardon, Richard. I was expecting to see you
somewhere else for some reason. I said to the European Scrutiny
Committee that nothing that I would characterise as negotiation
has taken place. If this Committee wants me to explain what I
mean by that, I will.
Q104 Chairman: We shall come to the
detail in a moment. You referred to the Spanish Government. Spanish
sources are reportedly very surprised and shocked at the position
being taken by our Government. Should they be?
Margaret Beckett: I set out that
position in slightly more detail perhaps, on Sunday night, but
only on the fact that in the United Kingdom we are adamantly of
the view that an amending treaty is required. We have been saying
for a considerable period that that treaty should be very different
from the overall constitutional treaty and should not have the
characteristics of a constitution. That should not have come as
a surprise, but, for some, it appears to have done so.
Q105 Sandra Osborne: Secretary of
State, you have stated that there are quite different views within
the European Community on the way forward for institutional change
ranging from minimalist to maximalist positions. There seems to
have been a range of discussions; there are those who would be
happy with a sort of road-map look to the future with quite a
relaxed time scale, as opposed to those who wish to see substantial
agreement in the European Council with a view to putting into
practice a new agreement by the time of the European elections.
What is the chance of the Council agreeing to an intergovernmental
conference that would open its doors in 2007?
Margaret Beckett: Actually, that
is one of the things that I should have said, so thank you. Part
of the proposal put by the German presidency, along with its report
on its discussions with member states, was to identify its belief
and proposal that there should be an IGC beginning and ending
under the Portuguese presidency—in other words, a short
IGC that can be terminated with agreement by December. It has
indicated, and so has the Portuguese presidency—not surprisingly—that
that would require a very detailed mandate. It would like to achieve
a very clear understanding by all member states of what the IGC
will consider and seek to agree, so that it can be done, and a
mandate that is so defined as to not permit the reopening of a
whole lot of other issues that were not agreed as part of the
mandate of the Portuguese presidency. That is challenging.
Q106 Sandra Osborne: If it was not
possible to reach agreement on that, what would the UK Government
see as the way forward for the process for institutional reform?
Margaret Beckett: I think that
an awful lot depends on the circumstances in which an agreement
was not reached. If it appeared that we were very close to an
agreement but that there were nuances of difference, that would
be one set of circumstances. If it appeared that people were wide
apart, we would have to think about where that left us.
At this point, I think that it is important
to say to the Committee that, in the past, there have been comments
from various quarters that if the European Union cannot get an
agreement, there will be a huge crisis and that the EU will no
longer be able to function. I think that the last few months have
shown that that is not actually so. The EU is functioning and
has, indeed, reached some quite far-reaching decisions, such as
the decisions on energy policy and climate security and other
decisions of real day-to-day benefit to European citizens. Another
example is the decision on mobile phone roaming charges.
The EU is continuing to work, but, having said
that, I do not dispute that if we could tidy up the rule book,
it could be made to work more efficiently and effectively. However,
it has not ground to a halt so far, and it is not the case that
it would do so automatically.
Q107 Mr Keetch: Foreign Secretary,
you mentioned the referendum in your introduction and you said—I
am paraphrasing you—that those countries that had a referendum
and lost did not want to go back with another referendum. You
mentioned also that those countries that had a referendum and
won also had difficulties with agreeing to something that was
less than what they had. The UK has not had a referendum on anything.
Should I take it from what you have said that you would not come
back to Britain after the summit and recommend anything that you
do not believe would require a referendum?
Margaret Beckett: I am not sure
whether we have got our negatives right there, but I know what
you mean.
Q108 Mr Keetch: Okay, let me put
it again. Are you saying that you will not agree to anything that
you think would have to be put to the British people in a referendum?
Margaret Beckett: The Prime Minister
has made very clear what our red lines are and said that we would
not agree to breach those red lines. We believe that those red
lines would indeed be below the threshold that would trigger a
referendum.
Can I correct or add to something that you said
at the outset? I mentioned the other member states that had held
referendums and lost; to be fair to them, they are not saying
"We do not want to have another referendum," although
that may well be their view. What they are saying very clearly
is "We will not put back to our people the treaty on which
we have had a referendum, to be re-endorsed." That is a slightly
different approach. It may well be that they would prefer to avoid
a referendum but what they are really saying is "We will
not submit a second time a treaty that has once been rejected."
Q109 Mr Keetch: But can I take it
from what you have said that the red lines that you and the Prime
Minister have drawn will mean that, when you come back from this
summit, nothing that you come back with will warrant, in your
opinion, a referendum, and that therefore we can rule out once
and for all the British people having a referendum on whatever
you come back with from the summit?
Margaret Beckett: I have not been
prepared to say that, and I am not prepared to say it today. I
simply say that we will come to a view on whether a treaty requires
a referendum when we see what is in the treaty. That seems to
me the only sane way to approach it.
Q110 Ms Stuart: May I follow up on
this? Back in 2004 the reason that the Prime Minister agreed to
a referendum had nothing to do with constitutional arrangements
or red lines. He said, "The treaty does not and will not
alter the fundamental nature of the relationship between member
states and the European Union ... Parliament should debate it
in detail and decide upon it. Then, let the people have the final
say." His reason for a referendum then was neither constitutional
nor linked with breaching any red lines or anything else. It was
a fundamental principle that the people should decide. Why is
that not the case also with an amending treaty?
Margaret Beckett: First of all,
a great many things have been said about what happened in 2004.
The Prime Minister himself said, if I recall correctly, that it
was because he accepted, perhaps a little reluctantly, that the
constitutional treaty would substantially change the relationship
between Britain and the European Union that he felt that it was
right to have a referendum. If a treaty would not substantially
change that basis, the argument would fall.
Chairman: Let me bring in Andrew Mackinlay
and questions about process, involvement in debate in this country
and about how we have approached the run-up to this weekend.
Q111 Andrew Mackinlay: I understood
that the Prime Minister appointed two—I think they were
referred to as "focal points".
Margaret Beckett: A bizarre term,
I agree.
Q112 Andrew Mackinlay: Yes, but I
shall not argue with the Prime Minister about it.
Margaret Beckett: It was not his
term; it was a German description.
Q113 Andrew Mackinlay: Yes. They
were Shan Morgan and Kim Darroch and I understand that they have
been talking to their opposite numbers. I do not say this critically,
but the last time the Government formally reported to Parliament
was back in January and I guess that your argument would be that
there was nothing much to report. Is that right; it is only now
that it has all come to a head? Yet those two officials have been
talking all the time, have not they?
Margaret Beckett: I should have
said that the "focal points" are meeting as we speak,
but slightly to my surprise—I shall not disguise that from
the Committee—there has not been a sustained series of exchanges
between the "focal points". There have been two actual
meetings, but a couple or so conversations bilaterally between
the German representatives and those of the United Kingdom—and
others, but I meant on their own. There have been only two meetings.
One was on 2 May, the second was on 15 May, and the third will
take place today, at which we believe that a draft mandate may
well be put before them to communicate to their Governments.
Q114 Andrew Mackinlay: The fear of
parliamentarians and members of the public is that, if that is
so, and if so much is coming to a crescendo this weekend, it has
all the elements of being bounced. It does not matter how skilful
or resolute you or the Prime Minister are, there is a danger that,
as of this moment in time, with discussions going on and nothing
much having emerged, this weekend we could find that there is
agreement on a treaty and/or constitution, and by Monday we could
well be arguing about what it is and whether it meets your threshold.
That is not a comfortable way in which to make decisions of such
gravity, is it?
Margaret Beckett: I did describe
it as challenging.
Q115 Andrew Mackinlay: May I ask
you about these good folk—the entourage who will go with
you and the Prime Minister this weekend? Do they include the two
people I have referred to—Shan Morgan and Nicola Brewer?
Margaret Beckett: Yes.
Q116 Andrew Mackinlay: Why on earth
is the Minister for Europe not going? I find that absolutely amazing.
Margaret Beckett: I do not know
whether he is going or not.
Andrew Mackinlay: I asked him this morning,
and he said no. It begs a question. He is elected and he is Minister
for Europe, and I would have thought that this would be core business
for him from January to now. It is breathtaking that he is not
going, because presumably he knows all about this.
Chairman: Foreign Secretary, before you
answer, I think that Mr Mackinlay's impression was that the Minister
for Europe was not going, but I think what the Minister said was
that he had not yet made up his mind whether he was going or not.
Q117 Andrew Mackinlay: That was after
he gulped after he had said that he was not going. He saw everyone's
reaction and then he said that. Is he going or is he not?
Margaret Beckett: I actually do
not know as a matter of fact. He does not normally attend the
European Council.
Q118 Andrew Mackinlay: You see my
point; I am not being sarcastic. Senior officials have been doing
this work to the best of their ability—that much has emerged.
Below Cabinet level, we have a Minister for Europe—
Mr Keetch: Who sits in on the Cabinet.
Andrew Mackinlay: Apparently. We have
a massive thing this weekend and no one knows whether the Minister
for Europe is going. I find that breathtaking and amazing.
Margaret Beckett: I think perhaps
there is a bit of a misunderstanding here, and it goes back to
the point that I made—at least, I think that I made it—about
whether there has been what I would call negotiation. Yes, of
course he is steeped in the detail in the sense that he has had
extensive conversations with other Ministers for Europe in which
he has set out the position of the United Kingdom, much as we
have all set it out in any conversations that we have had or in
any dialogue, as I would put it, with other colleagues.
Q119 Andrew Mackinlay: But Foreign
Secretary, that is rather my point. Your responsibilities are
right across the waterfront, are they not? He exists but might
not even be there to whisper in your or the Prime Minister's ear.
Margaret Beckett: Well, that is
exactly what happened when the constitutional treaty was negotiated.
If I may remind you, it is the Foreign Secretary who negotiates.
Can I also say that the Minister has had extensive conversations
with other Ministers for Europe, but we all have a broad idea
of where other member states stand and of their general approach.
However, because there has not been a process that I would characterise
as negotiation, there is no mass of hidden detail for Mr Hoon
to know that is not known to all the rest of us, including the
"focal points".
1 Questions 1-102 relate to an earlier evidence session
by the Foreign Affairs Committee on "Developments in the
European Union", held on 13 December 2006. This evidence
is published on the Committee's website http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/foreign_affairs_committee.cfm
Back
| 
