Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-239)
MR JIM
MURPHY MP, MS
SHAN MORGAN
AND MS
SHELAGH BROOKS
12 SEPTEMBER 2007
Q220 Ms Stuart: So no input from
Parliament? The only thing that you concede is that, after you
have finished negotiations, Parliament may or may not satisfy
itself that you had a good deal?
Mr Murphy: Ms Stuart, I am not
sure that I am conceding that—I am celebrating the fact
that Parliament must, rightly, be satisfied that the treaty and
its content are in the national interest of the United Kingdom.
We have been very clear about that from the beginning.
Q221 Mr Keetch: I want to pursue
this by following up what Gisela Stuart said, and also what Andrew
Mackinlay said. The idea that Parliament will scrutinise the treaty
is balderdash. The reality is that Parliament will either enact
a Bill to put that treaty into UK law or not. Presumably if Parliament
decided not to enact that treaty into UK law, it would mean a
brake on the process, rather like the French or the Dutch referendums
were. Then the whole lot would have to go back into the sausage
machine for renegotiation. The reality is that Parliament will
not discuss the treaty; all Parliament will do is enact a Bill
to ratify the Government's decision to sign the treaty. Is that
wrong or right?
Mr Murphy: The point is that Parliament
will not negotiate the treaty. It will discuss and decide whether
to ratify the treaty. A reading of Hansard from the previous
treaty ratification process—which I alluded to in an earlier
answer—makes it clear that it is the detail of the treaties
that is discussed. For the treaty to have effect in the EU, every
one of the 27 member states will have to ratify it.
Q222 Mr Keetch: But it is a yes or
no decision. Parliament will not scrutinise that treaty—effectively,
it will say, "Yes, we agree to that," or, "No,
we don't."
Mr Murphy: What will happen with
this treaty is similar to what happened with previous treaties.
Parliament will come to a view on the treaty, through the vehicle
of a Bill, as with the Single European Act, the treaties of Maastricht,
Amsterdam and Nice. That is the established way in a parliamentary
democracy and how we do this in the United Kingdom. All other
26 member states will decide for themselves what is the best way
of going about their process of ratification, but I note in passing
that the vast majority of member states intend to do so through
parliamentary ratification, with only our good friends in Ireland
opting for an alternative process.
Q223 Mr Keetch: I want to come on
to that point. Mr Murphy. I do not in any way say that what you
have said is incorrect, but the idea that Parliament would have
scrutiny over the treaty is a bit of a red herring because, effectively,
all that Parliament has is a yes or no decision. Presumably, if
we said no, the treaty would have to go back into the sausage
machine. You mentioned on BBC Radio 5 Live on 5 September that
only Ireland would be holding a referendum. Do you still stand
by that? Do not you think that other countries might hold referendums?
Mr Murphy: I cannot second-guess
every other member state in the EU; it is, of course, a matter
for them. At the moment, the only country that has declared its
intention to have a referendum is our friends in Ireland. Yesterday,
I spoke to Dick Roche, Ireland's European Minister, and it is
clear from our conversation, yet again, that he acknowledges that
Ireland has an entirely different democratic architecture from
the UK's. He emphasised yesterday—he is happy for me to
share this with the Committee as he has already said it publicly—that
the UK has a system of parliamentary sovereignty, which we all
know and celebrate, but in the Republic of Ireland there is no
such process. In fact, he explained to me—Mr Mackinlay will
know much of the detail because he is an historian of Irish parliamentary
process—that the TDs are messengers to the Dail. That is
a clear and important distinction. There is no concept in the
Irish constitution of parliamentary supremacy and, therefore,
they have to ratify treaties by means of a referendum, as they
have chosen to do so.
Q224 Mr Keetch: Are you saying that
you stand by your statement of 5 September that only Ireland will
require a referendum?
Mr Murphy: I do not have the transcript
of the Radio 5 Live programme, but I will say that no other member
state currently intends to have a referendum. As I have said,
only our good friends in Ireland intend to have a referendum.
Q225 Mr Keetch: I have just two more
quick questions. Can you guarantee that the decision of Parliament
will be held after the Irish referendum? It seems to me that it
will be a bit of a waste of parliamentary time if we go though
that process and the Irish then reject the treaty in a referendum.
I am sure that there are lots of other things that we could do
that would be valued by our constituents. Can you guarantee that
any Bill put before Parliament would come only after an Irish
referendum or any other?
Mr Murphy: First, I should have
mentioned that, with this treaty, we intend to use the same process
that three previous Prime Ministers have used with five different
treaties—a process of detailed parliamentary scrutiny whereby
the House of Commons and the House of Lords give their consent,
if they so wish, to a reform treaty. That is the correct way in
a parliamentary democracy, separate, of course, from the Irish
system. With regard to the point about whether the House of Commons
should organise its business around the detail of when Ireland
intends to have a referendum, I am not sure that that is something
that we would ever be attracted to.
Q226 Mr Keetch: It seems a waste
of our time to have that whole process if the Irish then effectively
veto the treaty. My constituents will say to me, "Why are
you having a process of ratifying a treaty if there is any possibility
that the people of Ireland can reject it?" It seems to me
that we should get through the process of Ireland saying either
yes or no—and, indeed, Poland, the Czech Republic, Portugal
and Denmark, which might also want referendums.
Mr Murphy: Mr Keetch, with respect,
I think that that is an entirely unworkable suggestion and, upon
a moment of reflection, you will accept it to be so. The flipside
of the argument is that a member of the Dail might say, "We
should not hold our referendum until the British have ratified
the treaty. What is the point of going through a massive referendum
campaign if Britain, the Czech Republic, France or Germany do
not ratify it?" That would not be a coherent way for the
mother of Parliaments to organise its business, around the ill-defined
timing of an Irish referendum. The Irish do not know when they
are having their referendum.
Q227 Mr Keetch: Let me give one other
small point that could enable the mother of Parliaments to allow
the process to go forward. I do not know what the final treaty
will say, which is why I think that it is wrong at this stage
to say that we either do or do not need a referendum. However,
in the final Bill that is presented to Parliament, would you allow
Parliament to make the final decision on whether there should
be a referendum in the UK?
Mr Murphy: The UK Parliament will
decide what is in the UK's interest, and the Irish referendum
will decide what is best for Ireland. We cannot timetable our
procedures here in the House of Commons around what is going to
happen in Ireland or elsewhere. Parliament will have the final
say on the treaty and on whether it chooses to ratify it—
[Interruption.]
Chairman: Through the Chair, please.
People on the list are patiently waiting, and I will not have
people jumping in— [Interruption.] No, Mr Mackinlay,
you will put your hand up and I will call you in due course as
I will everyone else. Mr Eric Illsley is next.
Q228 Mr Illsley: I should like to
clarify one or two points because we are getting really bogged
down in all this. Can you confirm, Minister, that no other country
will be able to amend the treaty either, because it was agreed
in June by all 27 countries? They are all in the same position
as we are; the question is simply whether they ratify by a referendum
or through their Parliament, as we will. We are not doing anything
different from what any other country is doing, and we are not
being denied an opportunity of taking this mandate or the text
apart because we are not having a referendum. No other country
can either. Is that right?
Mr Murphy: That is right.
Mr Illsley: Thank you.
Mr Murphy: All 27 member states
signed up to a mandate in June. I suspect that there will be domestic
pressure in some other member states to tweak aspects of the mandate.
However, it is not our intention to reopen the mandate. From my
conversations with other Europe Ministers in the past few weeks,
I can say that there is no intention to reopen the mandate. Of
course, there are press speculation and press coverage and comments
on the side. However, we do not intend to reopen the mandate,
and we are very clear about that. All 27 member states seem to
be in a similar position.
Q229 Sandra Osborne: May I ask the
Minister about a wee bit of the substance in relation to the treaty?
One of the main ideas of the constitution was to fulfil the declared
aim of bringing the EU closer to the people, but there will not
now be a single treaty. Has the EU abandoned the whole idea of
making it clear to ordinary Europeans exactly what it is up to?
Mr Murphy: There is an awful lot
in that question. I start from the premise that the solution to
the disconnect between Europe as a political concept and its institutions,
and the people of the member states, does not rely on institutional
tweaking or rearrangements. That is a false premise based on a
false analysis that says, "The problem is that the people
do not feel close enough to the structures."
For me, the only way in which Europe can properly
connect and gain a degree of affection is when it actually delivers
on the things that matter to real people rather than the things
that matter to politicians. We must have, for example, conversations
about how we deliver better on things such as the environment,
national security and economic dynamism. I have reflected before
on the issue of jobs: there are 92 million economically inactive
people in the European Union. How do we deal with that? That is
the type of conversation that would reconnect people to the idea
of Europe.
Small successes such as lower mobile phone charges,
easy movement across borders for holidaymakers and cleaner beaches
are the solution to that disconnect at a political level. To think
that the solution to the disconnect is structural is to use a
false premise. However, you are right to say that we have absolutely
abandoned the constitutional concept. I do not think that Europe
will have a constitution in our lifetimes, Ms Osborne.
Chairman: I shall take two more interventions
on this issue—first, Greg Pope, then Andrew Mackinlay. We
will then move on to Richard in the next section.
Q230 Mr Pope: I want to go back to
a point raised by Mr Keetch; either you did not answer it, or
perhaps I did not understand the answer. I just want a clarification.
Will Parliament be able to decide whether or not there is a referendum
in this country, or is that decision for the Government? I think
there is a very strong case for saying that Parliament should
decide whether there is a referendum. I put it to you that I suspect
that there is a majority in Parliament for a referendum.
Mr Murphy: On that specific point,
my reading of recent history on that is that there was a demand
for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. There was a vote in
Parliament. That, of course, is a matter of public record, and
I cannot see any reason why that sort of principle should not
be retained and maintained. That is an issue for Parliament if
it so wishes to express that opinion.
Q231 Andrew Mackinlay: On that point,
can you give an undertaking this afternoon that the draft legislation
consequent upon this treaty, when it comes before the House of
Commons, will be framed so that such an amendment can be tabled?
As you know, you must have regard for the long title, and if the
thing is drawn too narrowly, anybody who wanted at least to test
whether or not Parliament wanted a referendum would fall at first
base. In view of what you said to Mr Keetch and Mr Pope, it seems
not unreasonable to ask that this afternoon you reassure Parliament
and many people, friend and foe alike, that the legislation will
be drawn so as it is competent for a Member to table an amendment
saying, "And this matter shall be put to a referendum."
Mr Murphy: I shall address that
specific point and pick up on the other two questions that have
been posed. [Interruption.] I hope that you will allow
me to conclude my answer before you humph at me. I suspect that
you will not enjoy the first part of the answer but perhaps you
will be more reassured towards the end.
We have not got to the point of having a formal
treaty text. We certainly have not got to the point of drafting
a Bill—quite rightly—so I shall not speculate about
its content, long title, length, number of clauses and everything
else. But—thank you for not humphing until I got to this
point—as I say, there is the precedent of legislation on
Maastricht and other treaties whereby Parliament was able to table
an amendment demanding a consultative referendum. I believe that
was the situation in respect of Maastricht, and the Government
at the time were opposed. I cannot see that it would be beyond
the wit and wisdom of men and women to frame the legislation in
such a way that the type of referendum that Mr Pope, Mr Keetch
and yourself have talked about could be given effect through Parliament.
Chairman: We have to move on; I call
Mr Younger-Ross, who has been very patient.
Q232 Richard Younger-Ross: Thank
you. I am slightly puzzled and bemused because the opening line
of the IGC mandate says, "The IGC is asked to draw up a Treaty".
Yet you seem to be telling us that they are going to draw up a
treaty and we have no input in that process.
Mr Murphy: First, Mr Gapes, I
realise—
Richard Younger-Ross: I am Mr Younger-Ross.
Mr Murphy: I know that. Mr Gapes,
I realise that those who record our proceedings will not have
an accurate reflection on how to use the Glaswegian word "humph",
and I do not know to correct that in terms of the parliamentary
record. I think that the general tone of my comments gives it
a certain definition, but I shall write to the Committee to clarify
what I mean by it.
Mr Younger-Ross is right that Parliament in
the United Kingdom does not negotiate the content of a treaty
on the Government's behalf. Those are our constitutional arrangements.
The Government of the United Kingdom negotiates on behalf of the
United Kingdom. Parliament then, through our parliamentary procedures
and the nature of our sovereign arrangements, then agrees—or
disagrees—to allowing that treaty to come into effect. Those
are the arrangements that have been in place and they will be
in place for this treaty too.
Q233 Richard Younger-Ross: The purpose
of this Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee is to examine
what your Department is doing. You keep telling us that there
were no negotiations before June, and the previous Foreign Secretary
said that there were no talks, discussions or negotiations. You
now tell us that, in fact, we discussed and agreed this all in
June. Are you really telling me that we agreed the whole of the
IGC process—the mandate and all of that—in less than
a week?
Mr Murphy: Yes.
Q234 Richard Younger-Ross: So we
have a major document, which will change the constitution of the
European Union—sorry, it will not, of course, be a constitution;
it will fundamentally change the legislation, rules and regulations
of the constitution— and we signed up to it in a week.
Mr Murphy: Your premise/question
is based on the belief or view that this all came out of the blue.
The conversation about the initial constitutional treaty went
on longer than any human being wanted it to, or than was natural
in any of our processes. It went on for a number of years, as
you know, Mr Younger-Ross. The referendums changed the direction.
There will no longer be a constitution. There is a process through
the IGC and the German presidency, which I think handled it pretty
skilfully and effectively to get agreement from all 27 member
states. That process took place in June, and the previous Foreign
Secretary was absolutely correct in what she said to this, and
other Committees on the matter.
Q235 Richard Younger-Ross: The then
Prime Minister contradicted her and said that negotiations and
talks had been going on for years.
Mr Murphy: Mr Younger-Ross, I
have just said that talks have been going on for years and that
there were negotiations about the constitutional treaty—of
course there were. That is a matter of repeated public record.
What the previous Foreign Secretary spoke about were the negotiations
about the specific content of the IGC mandate in June, and you
and I are both aware that that is what both of them were speaking
about.
Q236 Richard Younger-Ross: Minister,
this comes to the nub of the matter. Scrutiny requires that these
Committees are able to discuss what those negotiations are with
the Ministers, and are not blanked off and told that nothing happened.
For what reason do we have a reform treaty and
not a constitutional treaty? Do we have a reform treaty purely
on the basis that it is two existing treaties? Are the contents
of those treaties not fundamentally the same as they would have
been in the constitutional treaty? Is it not just spin that makes
us call it a reform treaty and not a constitutional treaty, because
it is two elements rather than one?
Mr Murphy: No. First of all, I
think that the phrase you used, Mr Younger-Ross was "blanked
off". That is not what we are doing. We are telling you the
truth. You may enjoy a different answer, but it would not be accurate
to give you one. We are telling you what happened in terms of
the process of negotiation. That is being accurate and informing
the Committee of the actual process rather than it being "blanked
off"—it is nothing of the sort.
With regard to the previous constitutional treaty
and the reform treaty and the difference between them, all 27
member states—I have said this previously—have agreed
that the constitutional approach has been abandoned. That is what
all member states have agreed to. All member states have moved
away from the constitutional approach both in content and style,
but the UK in particular has moved further away from the previous
constitution than any other member state of the European Union.
That is a consequence of it achieving its red lines, a protocol
on the fundamental charter, on justice and home affairs, and all
sorts of other issues.
Additionally, and importantly, we have moved
away from the trappings that were spoken about in the constitutional
approach: the flag, the motto, the currency, the anthem. All of
that important symbolism has been abandoned as well. Importantly
and crucially we are not refounding the EU based on one new consolidating
treaty. The architecture of the EU remains on the basis of a collection
of different treaties rather than one. All of that is of crucial
importance when you consider the aspects of whether it is or is
not a constitutional treaty, even before we discuss the UK's specific
deal on our red lines.
Chairman: Mr Illsley please, with question
7.
Mr Illsley: I am sorry?
Andrew Mackinlay: The script, dear boy.
Mr Murphy: I was kind enough to
send you a tome of paperwork—that is the one piece of paper
I haven't got.
Q237 Mr Illsley: I have the negotiations
of the mandate there, I just lost the will to live for a minute.
Before the June council was there any discussion
of the idea of removing the constitutional element of the treaties
and bringing it within a single treaty structure, rather than
this apparently somewhat cumbersome idea of amending the two treaties
together? Was there any discussion of just the one treaty?
Mr Murphy: I think that there
was. Some had a grand ambition and an established ambition to
bring all the treaties under one body of text and call that a
constitution. We can debate that retrospectively if we wish, but
in terms of what has happened, what we are now committed to as
part of the IGC mandate is a traditional reforming treaty, in
the way that I have outlined in answers to previous questions.
The concept of bringing together all the powers, competences,
rules and everything else into one consolidated, specific treaty
and giving it the name of constitution is no longer on the cards.
It is no longer on offer and, as I speculated with Mrs. Osborne,
I do not think that it will be—certainly not in our political
life, but maybe not in our life at all.
Q238 Mr Illsley: No, what I meant
to ask was whether any discussion was given to the idea of having
a single treaty, but without the constitutional power—in
other words, to remove the idea that it would be a constitution?
That is the root of the problem that we have had since 2004. The
whole procedure has been given an importance that it simply does
not deserve by the unfortunate use of the word "constitution".
Was any consideration given to simply removing the constitutional
element and having a single tidying-up treaty?
Mr Murphy: I was not party to
those conversations, because at the time I was discussing how
to reform incapacity benefit at the Department for Work and Pensions,
but if the Committee is comfortable with it, I will undertake
to get access to all the conversations and negotiations of that
time and share the appropriate details with the Committee on that
specific point.
Chairman: That is helpful. Thank you.
Q239 Ms Stuart: It may be helpful—your
legal advisers can interrupt me if I am wrong—to try to
recast this. So far, if anybody listening to us has the vaguest
idea of the difference between a constitutional treaty, a reforming
treaty and an amending treaty, I applaud them.
Let us start with 2002—the Laeken declaration
and the convention on the future of the European Union. At that
point, the UK Government were not in favour of a constitution.
In summer 2002, by virtue of an article in The Economist,
the UK Government suddenly said, "Actually, we don't mind
a constitution." In 2003, a draft constitutional treaty was
handed over to the IGC, which then negotiated. By 2004, it came
back, still largely the same document in terms of its legal packaging,
but now called a constitutional treaty. At that stage, Parliament
was told in a number of terms that it was a treaty enacting a
constitution. Am I right so far?
Mr Murphy: I will allow you to
finish your question, and then I will answer that.
| 
