Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
TUESDAY 25 MARCH 2003
RT HON
PETER HAIN,
MP AND MR
NICK BAIRD
Chairman
1. Mr Hain, may I begin by thanking you very
much for taking the time to come and talk with us. I am delighted
to see Mr Nick Baird with you. Would you like to make an opening
statement?
(Peter Hain) I do not feel I need to, Chairman. I
am happy to take questions straight away.
2. That is very helpful to us, given the time
constraints. If I may begin, Secretary of State, Valery Giscard
d'Estaing and other key members are calling for more time to fine-tune
the draft Constitution or Constitutional Treaty, whichever you
prefer to call it, and to digest the lessons of Iraq, but EU leaders,
such as Prime Minister Simitis, seem to be insisting that the
Convention complete its work according to the original Laeken
timetable, that is to say, June 30. Do you think that this gives
enough time for a sensible consideration of tricky issues such
as the Common Foreign and Security Policy and institutional power
sharing? If the Laeken timetable prevails one must assume that
the important decisions will then be taken in the IGC itself and
on the basis of options produced by the Convention which was originally
envisaged by Laeken. Could you tell us whether you think that
the decisions taken in the IGC will be taken transparently, if
that is where they are going to be taken, compared with what is
going on in the Convention, and how are we going to use the time
between Thessalonika and the IGC to get the whole thing sorted
out?
(Peter Hain) First, thank you for inviting me again,
which I see as part of my mandate, to report back and be questioned
about the work of the Convention. We are working on the basis
that the original timetable is adhered to. There are proposals
for a special European Council on June 30 at which President Giscard
will present his conclusions from the Convention. For myself it
is not just a question of being liberated from the Convention,
much as I am enjoying it; it is also the old Parkinson's Law syndrome,
that I think you could expand the time for us to discuss these
difficult issues for ever and it needs to come to a conclusion
and I think the original timetable should be adhered to. We will
then go into the IGC after a period, I guess, for national parliaments
to reflect on the outcome and for governments to consider where
they stand and then for negotiations to proceed. As to how transparent
that could be, well, I do not imagine the IGC will be over very
quickly. It will be a period of months and that will enable greater
scrutiny and accountability for the direction that the final negotiations
are taking.
3. Do you have the impression, Secretary of
State, that the Praesidium is riding roughshod over too many of
the recommendations coming out of the work of the Plenary, for
example, on the role of the national parliaments?
(Peter Hain) As far as the Praesidium is concerned,
the first draft articles which appeared a few months ago, as I
commented at the time, did not seem to bear much resemblance in
many cases to the consensus arrived at in working groups that
we had slaved long and hard over, and at the subsequent plenaries,
which endorsed those conclusions by and large, in some cases you
felt you were in a different Convention from the one that the
Praesidium seemed to recognise. However, that was early days and
I think the Praesidium was quite struck by the force of criticism
not just from me but from a range of governments plus parliamentarians
of various sorts on the floor of the Convention making precisely
that point.
Lord Williamson of Horton
4. I have been given the easy question because
I am going to ask a couple of questions about possible changes
at the top. To tell you the truth, I think that in an enlarged
Community it is more important to have changes in the working
practices of the Council and the Commission and the changes at
the top are perhaps not so important as all that. Can I ask you
first about the President of the Council and the new proposal
that he should remain in office for perhaps four years as suggested
in your paper, and five years in the French and German paper?
Could you recapitulate how you think that proposal is going? Do
you think it is going to come through the mill at the end? The
second point is about the President of the Commission. I do not
think, that there is much change there from the current situation
because at present we have a long tradition that he is chosen
by the common accord of the Member States and in fact endorsed
by the European Parliament. It is not such a big change but perhaps
you could comment on that point also, where the choice of the
President of the Commission stands in the Convention.
(Peter Hain) On the President of the Council we have
been particularly keen to see this become a full time job. The
six-monthly rotation for presidencies does not allow for strategic
direction, does not allow for continuity, and if Europe is to
be taken seriously in the world, as I hope it can be, much more
seriously than it is at the moment, including on issues such as
Iraq ideally, then it has to have continuity of leadership on
behalf of governments. Who does President Bush form a relationship
with on the Council's behalf? The post changes every six months.
The same goes for presidents of key countries with whom the European
Union has annual summits, India, China and so on. There is that
key objective for somebody to make the Council better organised
and more serious rather than every time a new presidency comes
in it veering off in a different direction according to the pet
subjects of the Member State. I think it is very significant that
the Danish Prime Minister changed his mind in the course of his
six months' holding of the Presidency at the back end of last
year. He started off pretty sceptical and hostile about the idea
and ended up, having done his two tours of capitals preceding
each Council, thinking that, for serving Prime Ministers, this
was a bit arduous and that to do it with 25, or maybe 27 and more,
countries is frankly impossible to the point where it becomes
a joke. I think there is now quite a head of steam behind that
idea. We have got not just the UK supporting it but Spain, Sweden,
Denmark, probably Poland and the fact that the Germans subscribe
to it in the context of the Franco-German agreement is I think
very significant. I feel that it will probably only fly with some
arrangement for a team Presidency underneath which I am happy
to go into more detail about and not just fly but I think that
is where it should be. As far as the President of the Commission
is concerned, we are not enthusiastic about changing the system
of ratification or election, call it as you will, but if it is
part of the final agreement, and provided that if the President
of the Commission is to be elected by the European Parliament
(especially for those who go for Congress to be an alternative
electoral college) then the threshold should be sufficiently high
to ensure that the President of the Commission is not hostage
to one particular party. This for us is the real bottom line because
if we want a strong Commission, as we do, and if we want a strong
President, as we do, which has not been the case since Jacques
Delors, then you need somebody who is genuinely independent, strong
and accountable but not changing according to the whims of the
majority party.
5. Can I just say on the President of the Commission
that I much prefer your phrase which is "approved by the
European Parliament" to the phrase in the Franco-German document
"elected" which seems to me rather ridiculous because
they voted on Mr Prodi and they voted on Santer, so this is not
an election; it is simply a decision. It is an approval or not
an approval.
(Peter Hain) I think that is a fair point. The other
point that I have assiduously put, without serious rebuttal, to
supporters of this proposal is that you cannot have a President
of the Commission who does not enjoy the confidence of the Council.
Otherwise the institutions just do not work well together. Going
back to the President of the Council, we have suggested a team
presidency, the particular model of the four countries sharing
in the team presidency for two years and each within that rotating
through each of the eight sectoral Councils of Ministers and holding
the Presidency of each one every six months.
Lord Jopling
6. You said that in electing or creating a President
of the Commission the European Parliament should have a role of
some sort and you also said that it should not be in the hands
of one political party. Is the implication of that that a person
of that sort, however elected, would have to have broad support
across all the political parties?
(Peter Hain) Yes. I might say that I am not, and nor
are we as a government, enthusiastic about this proposal but if
it has to be on the table it has got to be in the context of being
a consensus candidate with the Council tied in in some way, either
maybe nominating the candidate or candidates or approving them,
whichever way round it was determined.
Baroness Maddock
7. What do you think are the key drivers for
reform of the institutional structures and do you think there
is a general recognition that the Union needs much more highly
developed planning and strategic thought across the institutions?
(Peter Hain) Yes, I do. That in fact was recognised
in the Laeken Declaration. Whether it is economic reform, whether
it is foreign and security policy, the European Union took a decision
a couple of years ago to activate ESDP but it is only now that
we are getting into a position where we can put a European peacekeeping
force into Macedonia, possibly. Economic reform is proceeding
but at too slow a pace and on action to secure Europe's borders
and a common asylum policy and so on against terrorism progress
is good but far too slow. This is a question of strategic direction
from the member governments and from the Commission as well.
8. Do you think it is more about the balance
between political leadership and administrative efficiency?
(Peter Hain) Both are needed. We want to see clear
political leadership given on behalf of the governments but also
the Commission being much stronger, better organised itself, and
itself carrying the agenda forward and, in partnership with the
Council, agreeing a common strategic direction over a number of
years which is then followed through with benchmarks according
to progress or otherwise.
9. How much do you think that the other European
states have the same view as you?
(Peter Hain) I think there is widespread support for
that. That is very much the conclusion of the Seville Council.
I know a number of Member States are just as exercised about it
as we are, especially in the context of enlargement where the
whole structure becomes much more unwieldy.
Lord Howell of Guildford
10. On this question of key drivers for reform,
Secretary of State, you and others have said many times that one
of the drivers is to entrench the position of nation states and
bring the processes of the Union closer to the citizen. On the
other hand the draft Treaty is full of proposals for the institutions
involving themselves in shared competencies in new areas of health,
security, economic policy, energy, environment, and indeed in
a sense with the idea of a Minister of Foreign Affairs in foreign
policy as well. I wondered how you squared this up. It seems there
are two very strong forces working in opposite directions.
(Peter Hain) That could be seen to be the case. I
do not think so. It really depends how it comes out. For example,
re-connecting Europe with its citizens is a key objective of the
Laeken Declaration which set up this whole process. If you have
much more accountable decision making by member governments through
the Council with a full time President and with greater transparency
of the Council decision making, either at European Council level
or at sectoral council level, especially when legislating or declaring
national positions, then I think Europe can start to mean something
more for its citizens than it does at the present time. I think
the whole issue can be addressed through Council reform and through
giving national parliaments a much greater say over subsidiarity
and proportionality on any new proposal coming forward.
Chairman
11. Since you mentioned subsidiarity and proportionality,
Secretary of State, could you just elaborate a little on where
you stand now in the Convention on the issue of the red card?
We read that you and Gisela Stuart are now at one on this, which
is somewhat prescribed by members of the Convention. Where do
you stand on that?
(Peter Hain) We want to see a subsidiarity mechanism
with teeth. There is one argument to say that if, as is pretty
well the consensus at the moment, a third of national parliaments
declare their opposition, the Commission in the current state
of play is obliged to reconsider and possibly withdraw its proposal.
I think in practice, if a third of national parliaments, probably
reflecting their national governments more or less, said no to
a proposal on the grounds of subsidiarity or proportionality,
it would be very difficult to see how the Council could carry
it through. I think the Commission effectively is in red card
territory there even if it is not forced to swallow that explicitly.
I think it would be totally unacceptable to discredit the whole
European Union if a substantial number of national parliaments
said, "No, this infringes the principle of subsidiarity or
proportionality" and the Commission took absolutely no notice
at all. That is a balance between not wanting to infringe on or
transgress the Commission's right of initiative and the important
role of players in bringing forward proposals in Europe's general
interest and stopping by these vetoes from national parliaments
the things they just did not like as opposed to their possibly
being in Europe's interest, and possibly in Britain's interest,
and at the same time saying that if a substantial number of objections
give you good reasons for doing so there is not any way that this
could just be steamrollered through.
12. The Praesidium appears to be saying that
what they want to have is parliamentary access to the European
Court on these issues to come through the national government
concerned. Do you agree with that? That is not what the Working
Group is saying.
(Peter Hain) No. I am very suspicious about the Court
of Justice being hauled in to determine subsidiarity. It has,
as it were, a longstop role at the end of the process where any
national government can go to the ECJ for a determination if it
is not happy. I think this is a political matter, not a legal
matter, and to have constant recourse to the Court during the
process I do not think would make Europe operate very effectively
or would be at all desirable.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
13. Do you see any possibility for having a
role for something like a constitutional court which would not
be a European Court of Justice? What strikes me about the national
parliaments and the red card system is that all too often the
countries whose parliaments are opposed to the Commission's proposals
say that it offends against the law of subsidiarity and the countries
that are in favour of it say it does not. It strikes me that you
may risk replicating a division in the Council and therefore somewhat
undermining the objectivity of the discussion on subsidiarity.
I would agree with what you say about the European Court of Justice
not being the ideal body to appeal to but several Member States
do have constitutional courts that do play a role like this and
it has occurred to me in recent years that the European Union
might need to consider that role.
(Peter Hain) There has not been an argument advanced
that I can see where the case you are putting comes from. There
has not been a serious argument advanced recently in the Convention
on that. I think a kind of European Supreme Court, which is effectively
what that proposal would envisage, is not something that I am
frankly very keen on. I think that these issues are best handled
at a European level. After all, we are not talking about a super
state; we are talking about freely co-operating sovereign states
and I think we should be pretty reluctant to create new institutions.
Baroness Park of Monmouth
14. I see that the Convention has broadly supported
the proposal on subsidiarity but with the proviso that the Committee
of the Regions be given a role with the right to refer the matter
to the Court of Justice. Would you feel that that is going to
complicate matters quite a lot?
(Peter Hain) Yes.
15. We are discussing regional assemblies now.
(Peter Hain) We put forward a paper which I dare say
has been circulated to the Committee—if it has not I can
certainly arrange for that to be done—on proposing that
the Committee of the Regions be given more influence because frankly
it is a bit of a talking shop at the moment, and that the regions,
including our nations, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, be
given the right to be consulted over issues which they are required
to implement.
16. Nationally or by the Commission?
(Peter Hain) By the Commission going via Member States.
By the way, the same applies on subsidiarity but national parliaments
would automatically be copied out on the e-mail as it comes through
the new legislative proposal to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
and any English regions in future. It is not a question of saying
that the regions should not have more influence. Europe is not
just a Europe of nation states. It is a Europe of the regions
within those nation states. I am not keen on another recourse
to the Court of Justice.
Baroness Stern
17. My question follows on from Lord Howell's
question about connecting the EU and its citizens. You have said
a little about how you think these reforms might work to connect
the citizens and the EU. Can you say a little bit more about that
and whether you believe that it will be effective and whether
perhaps other measures are needed as well, more information, more
education (quite a lot more), in order to sell the whole effort
of getting involved to people outside the charmed circle of people
who understand the language and the way it all works?
(Peter Hain) In my period as Europe Minister I came
face to face with how difficult it is to get an understanding
of Europe. One in 15 British citizens thinks the United States
of America is in the European Union, according to a Foreign Office
survey. It is indicative of the gap of information that there
is. A combination of a much enhanced subsidiarity role for the
national parliaments would have a valuable effect, not least involving
Members of Parliament and Members of your House more actively
in European debates. I am really struck by the relatively small
number of colleagues in the House of Commons who really understand
and follow European debates. I am not sure whether that was the
case in Lord Howell's day and Lord MacLennan's day or Lord Jopling's
day, but certainly I feel that. Binding national parliaments more
closely into this instead of just seeing it as an area of expertise
and scrutiny, however valuable that is, I think will be a big
step forward in involving the public.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
18. The open method of co-ordination seems to
be gaining general agreement and indeed in the paper that you
submitted jointly to the Convention we see you support the creation
of a Treaty base. Indeed, you say that the open method of co-ordination
should also be included in the Treaty whilst observing its flexibility.
Do you think that national parliaments will be able to undertake
their scrutiny responsibilities effectively using this procedure?
(Peter Hain) I understand the concern there but I
do not see why not in principle. In essence what this is saying
is that the reflex response of Brussels, which is to go for legislation
on virtually everything, is not necessarily the best approach,
and peer group pressure, target setting and so on, on policy development
is often just as effective in areas like economic policy and social
policy, as we saw from the economic reform programme that was
decided at Lisbon in 2000. The Lisbon Council was the first to
use this phrase, I think. We would like to see Europe operating
much more on that basis in tackling common problems. If legislation
is sensible, legislate, but do not just impose legal obligations
on Member States as the only route to achieving desired objectives.
19. And that is how you hope to achieve a balance,
by doing it in that way?
(Peter Hain) Yes. It should be flexible. I do not
see any reason why it should not be accountable because the decisions
in the end can be accountable and, given the difficulties of holding
in practice as opposed to in theory European decision-making on
two accounts, at a citizen level and a national parliament level,
I do not see that the open method of co-ordination will make that
either better or worse.
|
