Formal Minutes
Wednesday 19 January 2011
Members present:
Mr William Cash, in the Chair
| Mr James Clappison
Michael Connarty
Jim Dobbin
Julie Elliott
Nia Griffith
Chris Heaton-Harris
| | Kelvin Hopkins
Chris Kelly
Stephen Phillips
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Henry Smith
|
************
The Committee deliberated.
Draft Report (The EU Bill: Restrictions on Treaties
and Decisions relating to the EU) proposed by the Chair,
brought up and read.
Draft Report The EU Bill: Restrictions on Treaties
and Decisions relating to the EU) proposed by Michael Connarty,
brought up and read, as follows:
"Introduction:
1. In his evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee
the Minister for Europe, David Lidington claimed that:
"The point of the referendum lock is to guard
against the risk that, in future, powers would be transferred
to the European Union without the consent of the British people
in the way that has happened in the past."
2. The Government has made it plain that there will
not be a referendum under Part 1 of the Bill in the lifetime of
this Parliament. The explanatory notes to the Bill emphasise
that Government consent to a proposal in Brussels is a pre-condition
to triggering the 'referendum lock'.
3. The Minister for Europe also stated that:
'I very much want to see the UK not only remaining
a member of the EU, but being a very active participant as well.'
4. There is a clear contradiction between the claim
of the Government to deliver legislation to require a referendum
before transfers of competence and the EU Bill being presented
to the House at this time. These contradictions are contained
in both the requirements for a 'significance' test and in the
'exemptions' in reference to clauses of the Bill.
5. It is obvious that the process of participation
in the EU policy making institutions, and in addition the role
of the ECJ in judgements on the applicability of those policies
will create situations where the Government Minister will make
use of the 'significance' test to avoid having to call for a referendum,
or the exemptions condition to avoid having to bring forward an
Act of Parliament.
Impact on EU-UK Relationships
6. The Bill increases the impression of 'British
Exceptionalism' but lacks credibility as a tool to increase the
UK's negotiating position in the context of the EU policy making
process. We believe there is some credibility in the evidence
received that it is likely that the Bill will be viewed by other
EU governments with a mixture of 'dismay to anger'. The Bill contains
the danger that it will start the UK down a road that was last
trodden by the 1992-1997 Government under John Major when the
UK was marginalised in the EU. This is a position of which the
Committee would not approve.
Evaluation and conclusions
7. The Committee concurs with the view of Professor
Hix that the Bill is not credible as he stated:
'[It]...is primarily designed......on the understanding
that there would never in practise be referendums on most of these
things. My question is how credible it is in that aim. And frankly
I don't find it that credible.'
And concludes that:
'It is in reality unlikely that, most of the Treaty
provisions will attract a referendum under the Bill, will ever
be successfully invoked.'
8. We believe that the 'significance' assessment
in the Bill is a deliberate escape condition for the Government
and we seek clarification and codification from the Government
in what circumstances and at what level the imposition of obligations
or sanctions would be considered insignificant.
9. The scope of the "exemption condition"
is similarly unclear as it simply states that "the Act providing
for the approval of the treaty does not fall within section 4".
10. In our opinion the exception in Clause 4 (4)
(a) of "codification of practice...in relation to the previous
exercise of an existing competence" is of serious concern
as there is past evidence of EU institutions pushing the boundaries
of their competence (competence creep) sometimes supported by
the judgements of the ECJ—and subsequently in the codification
in a revision of the Treaties.
11. We think it is anomalous to exclude accession
Treaties from the scope of a Bill that claims to give consideration,
as claimed by the Minister for Europe, David Lidington to "the
consent of the British people". Similarly it is anomalous
given the effect of the accession of a new Member State both on
UK relations with the EU and on subsequent the voting power in
the Council. It is disingenuous of the Government to exclude accession
Treaties from this Bill.
12. We conclude that the exemption condition, read
together with clause 4(4) and the relevant paragraph of the Explanatory
Notes, is so broad and open-ended to allow the Minister too wide
a discretion to consider a provision exempt and to undermine the
stated aim of the Bill.
13. We consider Opt-in decisions to be at this moment
too far removed from the process of Parliamentary Scrutiny and
control to be consistent with the Democratic process and to be
a major source of the transfer of policy making and powers to
the EU. It is necessary for decisions to Opt-in to existing EU
Directives, or parts there-of to be brought under the scope of
Part 1 of the Bill and for all Opt-in decisions to be subject
to formal Parliamentary approval of an affirmative resolution.
14. We are of the opinion that the use of a referendum
should be used for major issue of national policy and for matters
of serious constitutional concern. We view the EU Bill as presently
before the Parliament as an attempt to trivialise the proposed
uses of the referendum while at the same time misleading the British
people with a Bill that is very unlikely to ever be used in the
process of participation in the policy making of the EU.
15. We furthermore consider that the EU Bill and
the rhetoric around it will damage the standing of the UK in the
institutions of the EU and with the other EU Governments as the
emphasis on "British Exceptionalism" will drive the
UK away from the centre of the table at EU negotiations which
will not be to the benefit of the people of the UK."
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chair's
draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.—(The
Chair.)
Amendment proposed, to leave out, "Chair's draft
Report" and insert "draft Report proposed by Michael
Connarty".—(Michael Connarty.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 4 Noes, 5
Michael Connarty James
Clappison
Jim Dobbin Chris Heaton-Harris
Julie Elliot Chris Kelly
Nia Griffith Jacob Rees-Mogg
Henry Smith
Main Question put and agreed to.
Ordered, That the Chair's
draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 91 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 92 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 3, leave out from "field"
to end of paragraph.—(Michael Connarty.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 3 Noes, 8
Michael Connarty James
Clappison
Jim Dobbin Nia Griffith
Julie Elliot Chris Heaton-Harris
Kelvin Hopkins
Chris Kelly
Stephen Phillips
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Henry Smith
Paragraphs 93 to 105 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 106 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 2, leave out from "as"
to "enlargement" in line 4. —(Michael Connarty.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 4 Noes, 7
Michael Connarty James
Clappison
Jim Dobbin Chris Heaton-Harris
Julie Elliot Kelvin
Hopkins
Nia Griffith Chris Kelly
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Stephen Phillips
Henry Smith
Paragraph 107 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 108 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 3, leave out from "premised"
to end of paragraph and add "on an affirmative resolution
considered on the floor of both Houses.". —(Michael
Connarty.).
The Committee divided.
Ayes,4 Noes, 7
Michael Connarty James
Clappison
Jim Dobbin Chris Heaton-Harris
Julie Elliot Kelvin
Hopkins
Nia Griffith Chris Kelly
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Stephen Phillips
Henry Smith
Paragraph 109 read.
Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the
Report.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 6 Noes, 5
James Clappison Michael
Connarty
Kelvin Hopkins Jim Dobbin
Chris Kelly Julie Elliot
Stephen Phillips Nia
Griffith
Jacob Rees-Mogg Chris
Heaton-Harris
Henry Smith
Paragraph 110 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 111 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 2 leave out "a referendum
lock" and add "an affirmative resolution considered
on the floor of both Houses of Parliament."—(Michael
Connarty.)
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 4 Noes,
7
Michael Connarty James
Clappison
Jim Dobbin Chris Heaton-Harris
Julie Elliot Kelvin
Hopkins
Nia Griffith Chris Kelly
Stephen Phillips
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Henry Smith
Paragraph 112 to 117 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 118 read.
Amendment proposed, in line 12, leave out from "intended"
to end of paragraph and add "to accentuate British exceptionalism,
which could result in difficulties in the UK's relationship with
other EU countries that would not be in the best interests of
the UK."—(Michael Connarty.)
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 4 Noes, 7
Michael Connarty James
Clappison
Jim Dobbin Chris Heaton-Harris
Julie Elliot Kelvin
Hopkins
Nia Griffiths Chris
Kelly
Stephen Phillips
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Henry Smith
Paragraphs 119 and 120 read and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That the Report
be the Fifteenth Report of the Committee to the House.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 7 Noes, 3
James Clappison Michael
Connarty
Chris Heaton-Harris Julie
Elliot
Kelvin Hopkins Nia Griffith
Chris Kelly
Stephen Phillips
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Henry Smith
Ordered, That the Chair
make the Report to the House.
Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the
House for printing with the Report.
The Committee further deliberated.
[Adjourned till Wednesday 26 January at 2.00 p.m.
| 
