Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-299)
MR JIM
MURPHY MP, MS
SHAN MORGAN
AND MS
SHELAGH BROOKS
12 SEPTEMBER 2007
Q280 Chairman: But can I put it to
you that, in practice—once you establish the position of
high representative—that person will be known popularly
as the EU's Foreign Minister? Once you establish that person with
a budget of billions of euros and a staff of hundreds if not thousands—1,800
was the figure, I think—they will take on a persona and
a role whereby they will have a dynamic that grows over time.
That is obviously the intention. How will that relate to the proposal
before us, which seems to be that national Foreign and Commonwealth
Office and other countries' staff will be seconded to work in
that structure? Will those staff be accountable to the high representative
or will they remain accountable to their member Governments?
Mr Murphy: I am sure that you
are right to strike a note of caution on all that. However, there
is already a high representative who has that title.
Q281 Chairman: With a very small
staff.
Mr Murphy: Of course, but it is
a matter of conjecture whether the title itself leads to the person
being described as a Foreign Minister—either in the past
or in the future. On the external action service, there has been
an agreement for its commencement, but the detail is still being
worked out. However, I know that it will be proceeded with on
the basis of unanimity in the negotiations.
Q282 Chairman: What about the people
who work there?
Mr Murphy: The detail of all of
that is still to be worked out.
Q283 Chairman: Perhaps we can have
a detailed note that explains where we are at this moment. Perhaps
also—before the Foreign Secretary appears before us in October—we
can have a note then as to where we are at that point, assuming
that there are discussions if not negotiations between now and
then. The issue is clearly one that we shall need to come back
to, because it is fundamental to the way in which foreign policy
works in this country.
Mr Murphy: I shall happily take
up the invitation to provide whatever information is available.
Andrew Mackinlay: Mr Chairman, can I
ask that the Foreign Secretary also make some proposals in relation
to future parliamentary oversight?
Chairman: If there is time in the next
10 minutes we shall get to ask a question on that. We now move
on to some questions about justice and home affairs.
Q284 Sandra Osborne: How would you
envisage that the UK's opt-in on police and judicial co-operation
in criminal matters will actually work in practice?
Mr Murphy: In practice, it would
be a case of the United Kingdom Government considering the detail
of any proposal and deciding at that point whether it would be
appropriate for the UK to opt in if it were in our national interest.
It will be on a strictly case-by-case basis. That UK distinction
from other member states is important; they do not have such an
arrangement in the reform treaty. That is our intention, however:
to deal with proposals case by case on the basis of what is good
for Britain.
Q285 Sandra Osborne: Do you think
that that would be likely to cause resentment among the other
member states?
Mr Murphy: That picks up a little
on the point made by Mr Hamilton, which is that we have a record
of being involved centrally in those parts of European Union decision
making and policies with which we strongly agree, those that we
do not share an ambition over and those that we think are not
in the UK national interest to remain distinct from. I do not
say that it is universally popular, but it is a well established
British position and it is taken through in our opt-in on justice
and home affairs.
Q286 Sandra Osborne: In terms of
explaining matters to the public, it might be quite helpful if
we could have some examples of the issue into which the Government
would not wish to opt. As the matter is currently explained, it
does not really mean a lot to people.
Mr Murphy: That is a fair point.
Q287 Chairman: I am conscious that
you have been here nearly two hours, Minister. I am wondering
whether it would be possible for us to have another 10 minutes
beyond 4.30 pm so that we could ask you a couple of questions
about Russia as well as the European Union?
Mr Murphy: Okay.
Chairman: Thank you. Let us move to social
security.
Q288 Ms Stuart: I am sure that you
will be glad that I have a brief question, Minister. One of the
four red lines is social security and the strengthening mechanism,
and the emergency brake on social security. As a former Social
Security Minister, I wonder whether you can give us an example
of what you think we had in mind about what might happen? It seems
an incredibly widely phrased provision and something that would
affect fundamental aspects of the social security system, including
scope, cost or financial structure. You must have had some possible
scenarios in mind. In case I have misread the text, I must say
that I am assuming that the brake means that the Council will
have to act in unanimity.
Mr Murphy: On the latter point,
yes. As for what we have in mind, we have in mind any potential
future development that we did not agree with and that was significant
to our social security system, whether it be a new approach to
benefit exportability, a new approach to benefit entitlement or
any such issues. It is not aimed at a specific new proposal out
there in the ether of our distant horizon, but it is an important
wide-ranging protection, as you acknowledge, Ms Stuart.
Chairman: We now come to questions about
the role of Parliaments.
Q289 Richard Younger-Ross: One of
the bright points of the reform treaty is the fact that there
will be additional scrutiny by national Parliaments. The proposals
are that sets of votes should be allocated to the national Parliaments,
and if one third of the votes cast say that something is a matter
of subsidiarity and therefore legislation should not apply, the
EU constitution proposing it would have to review its proposal.
I believe that that is called the "yellow card". If
50% of those voting decide that it is a matter of subsidiarity
and not within the jurisdiction of the EU, the Commission would
have to look at it in greater detail. We could have the position
in which the majority vote in the European Parliament or 55% in
the Council would be sufficient to kill off a proposal. That is
referred to as the "orange card".
The orange card system came into the negotiations
rather late in the day. Minister, can you say whether both the
yellow card and orange card mechanisms for oversight of subsidiarity
will be available?
Mr Murphy: Yes.
Q290 Richard Younger-Ross: Thank
you, Minister. Can you say how those proposals will work within
the British Parliament?
Mr Murphy: Yes. I am surprised
that this has not caused greater excitement in the Westminster
village because the plan is that each member state Parliament
will be allocated two votes. Our intention as a Government—it
is an established arrangement—is to have one vote for the
House of Commons and one vote for the House of Lords. That is
our intention.
Q291 Richard Younger-Ross: How would
we use that vote? Who would decide on which way it was cast?
Mr Murphy: The House of Commons
and the House of Lords would vote on those issues.
Q292 Richard Younger-Ross: So it
would be a vote of the whole Chamber—not of a Committee,
and not in respect of a statutory instrument?
Mr Murphy: We are going to work
through the detail. It is a new proposal, a new protection and
a new brake. It is an important new power. We will have conversations
through the usual channels, Select Committees and others, about
the detail of it and the most appropriate way of proceeding. However,
as I confirmed to the House of Lords scrutiny Committee—I
think that it was pretty pleased—there will be one vote
for each Chamber in the Palace of Westminster.
Q293 Richard Younger-Ross: We are
delighted that we will have the vote and that the Back Benchers
of this House may have a say. I am slightly sceptical; they might
have a better say in the House of Lords. I am not sure about how
much ability we at our end of the House will have to override
what a Minister might have already said in the Council.
However, the document says that "National
Parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning
of the Union". I believe, Minister, that when the House of
Lords suggested that that rather imposed duties on Parliament
and that the wording was probably inappropriate, you took the
point and said that you intended to return to the issue in the
IGC. Have you been able to do so?
Mr Murphy: We are looking at that
through the process that is going on now. When the issue was raised
with colleagues, it appeared that it was a matter of drafting
rather than of intent, so it is not something to rectify or that
would lead to our having to reopen the IGC mandate. It involves
a specific word; the problem is one of drafting rather than one
of purpose and intention.
Q294 Richard Younger-Ross: What would
be the implication if the word "shall" was correct and
was not a drafting error?
Mr Murphy: It is a drafting error,
so I shall not speculate about what the alternative intention
would be if it had been put there on purpose. It was not.
Q295 Richard Younger-Ross: Is the
word "shall" going to remain?
Mr Murphy: That issue will feed
through to the technical legal working groups—whether the
word "shall" remains or whether we remove it. That is
what the lawyers are looking at. It is an issue of drafting.
The full picture is as follows. My French is
pretty rudimentary, but the issue is about translation from French
into English. In the French text there is no obligation, so there
is no equivalent in the French version of the text to the word
that has now found its way into the English version. I hope that
that helps clarify the issue.
Q296 Richard Younger-Ross: My knowledge
of French is probably even smaller than yours, Minister. However,
my knowledge of lawyers is probably comparable. Whatever the intent
behind a word, if a word is there, lawyers will latch on to it.
I am rather surprised that you are reluctant to say what the implications
would be if the word "shall" remained and we were unable
to find the form of words that the French appear to have and we
do not.
Mr Murphy: As I explained, the
issue is that the English is a translation from the French. There
is no equivalent word in the French and therefore the issue is
about drafting error, not intent. There is no point in speculating
about a word that we have no intention of having there.
Chairman: I shall take one last brief
question on the issue from Gisela Stuart. Then we shall move on.
Q297 Ms Stuart: My understanding
is that the Dutch Government were deliberately keen on the word
"shall". Can you confirm that?
Mr Murphy: No, I cannot.
Q298 Ms Stuart: Can you deny it,
then?
Mr Murphy: Yes.
Q299 Ms Stuart: So no Government
in the discussions wanted the meaning of "shall"?
Mr Murphy: What the Dutch Government
want—I suspect that they are not alone; they may be joined
by the Belgians and perhaps others—is reflected in some
of the increased powers for national Parliaments. The intention
is not to place a duty on national Parliaments. That is not the
Dutch Government's intention and it is not ours—it is not
in the Dutch text, either.
| 
