APPENDIX 1: LETTER FROM THE CHAIRMAN TO
THE MINISTER
The IGC and the Reform Treaty
Introduction
The Select Committee is very grateful to you and
your officials for briefing the Committee so promptly after the
European Council about plans for the IGC and its discussions of
the Reform Treaty.
As I indicated during the meeting, the Committee
takes its scrutiny of the Treaty very seriously. I also indicated
that the Committee would be writing to you soon after the meeting,
and in advance of the convening of the IGC on 23rd July, with
some follow-up questions which we consider the Government needs
to take on board at this stage. This letter will be printed in
a report to the House before the summer recess, along with a transcript
of your evidence.
This letter also replies to your letter of 16 July
with further material arising from the session. We are very grateful
for that very prompt letter.
The IGC mandate
It seems that the European Council's mandate to the
IGC represents a fait accompli. We note that the Government
will "resist any moves to re-open what has been agreed"
except for ensuring that the text of the future Reform Treaty
in fact represents what was agreed (Q 13). What room for
manoeuvre does HMG have if others seek to re-open the text in
a way that goes against UK interests and how will those interests
be secured in any such negotiation?
Transparency and explanation
One of our concerns is that the IGC process needs
to be made as transparent as is possible given the inter-governmental
nature of the discussions. We note your undertaking to follow
the 2004 precedent and make all non-confidential documentation
available both to the Committee and to the House more widely in
the Library (Q 9). This is a welcome commitment, as is your
proposal to challenge any confidential classification with a view
to ensuring a document's disclosure (Q 10). Are you now able
to say more precisely when a draft text of the Treaty will be
available to us?
We noted also your plans to produce two White Papers
next week (Q 2), one of which will "make the case based
on the fact that this is indeed a substantial series of changes
away from the previous Constitutional Treaty" (Q 6).
Will the White Paper set these out in full and give the Government's
position on the IGC Mandate? The Committee will of course wish
to be kept informed of issues arising during negotiations. What
other documents will be published and when?
Can you expand on the "important piece of work"
you will be undertaking over the next few months to deal with
the "significant degree of misunderstanding about the scope
of the Reform Treaty and what it sets out to achieve" (Q 8)?
Does the Government accept that, if they are to succeed in correcting
any such misunderstanding, there is a need both for a high level
overview that can be presented to the public and a detailed technical
document setting out in precise terms how the Reform Treaty amends
existing Treaty provisions?
You agreed with us (Q 37) that more could be
done to make the work of the Council transparent. What specific
issues are the government pressing in this regard, and in what
fora?
You stressed (Q 36) that the Government was
committed to ensuring the involvement of the devolved executives
in policy formulation and you outlined some mechanisms within
Government to ensure this, which we welcome. In the interests
of transparency, however, could more be done to reveal the extent
of consultation with devolved executives, perhaps by enhancing
the information in the devolution section of Government explanatory
memoranda on EU legislation?
Ratification
Can you confirm that any future amending Treaty presented
to Parliament for ratification will be handled in line with established
practices which allow both Houses to scrutinise the ratification
legislation?
Treaty provisions: Role of national parliaments
We note your reassurance (Q 22) that language
in a new Article concerning the role of national parliaments is
"inappropriate" in so far as it appears to impose certain
duties on national parliaments. Has this matter been raised with
the Portuguese presidency? Can you assure the Committee that the
Government will press for the reform treaty to contain more appropriate
wording?
Your letter of 16th July notes the need for clarification
concerning the orange and yellow cards. We agree that this is
needed. In our discussion we covered the proposed "orange
card" for national parliaments' concerns over subsidiarity
(Q 23) and drew attention to the support this Committee has
given to Commission President Barroso's broader initiative concerning
responses to more wide-ranging concerns from national parliaments.
You argued that the text of the Reform Treaty might not be able
to be changed to reflect that arrangement (Q 25). Will the
Government nevertheless undertake to ensure that the possibility
of enshrining the welcome Barroso initiative in Treaty text is
raised in the IGC, given that both the Commission and national
parliaments from all Member States (as represented in COSAC) would
support such an approach?
We note your reassurance that if the orange card
or a similar procedure is introduced, each Member State's parliament
will have two votes, and that in our system this means one for
each House (Q 28)?
Treaty provisions: the Charter
As far as the Charter of Fundamental Rights is concerned,
we note your statement that "the Protocol puts it beyond
doubt that a binding Charter will have no new impact on UK domestic
law and will create no new powers for the EU to legislate and,
in particular, will not extend the ECJ's or national courts' power
to challenge or reinterpret UK employment and social legislation.
That is beyond doubt" (Q 15). Are you able to publish
a line of legal reasoning to justify this position, while of course
protecting the specific legal advice received? Are you able to
confirm whether other Member States take the same view of the
strength of the UK's position as regards the Charter? Might the
Charter be used as a means of interpreting the extent of ECHR
guarantees, which are binding in the UK (Q 16)?
Treaty provisions: Institutional matter—the
Council and the Commission
In discussing the combination proposed of a longer-term
Presidency of the European Council and other arrangements for
presiding over the Council of Ministers you explained (Q 21)
that what was proposed represented a formalisation and extension
of current joint working between Presidencies. There are many
practical issues to be addressed, including who controls agendas,
staffing and rotas among Member States. How are these practical
issues being addressed and when will more details of working arrangements
be available?
You accepted (Q 34) that proposals to reduce
the size of the Commission to ensure efficiency and effectiveness,
which we welcome, may lead to friction. How are the concerns of
Member States being addressed? Is this an aspect of the mandate
that is likely to be re-opened?
Treaty provisions: Passerelle
We pressed you on the passerelle provisions
and you indicated that unanimity would be required before the
provision could operate (Q 40) but that the wording of the
text would need to be watched closely. Will the Government press
for the new Article to contain an express reference to the need
for unanimity? Will any provisions for national parliamentary
opposition allow for independent action by each chamber of a bicameral
parliament? Given that the Government does not wish to reopen
the mandate on this point, will the Government undertake to seek
parliamentary approval before voting to use a passerelle?
Other matters
You reassured the Committee that "the issue
of competition and the UK's approach to competition are protected"
(Q 20). It is thus our understanding that there is no change
from the EU and EC Treaties in a matter to which this Committee,
like the Government, will continue to pay close regard.
We also note your explanation of the change of wording
regarding "national security" (Q 29), and on primacy
and the Pillars (Q 30).
Conclusion
We will publish this letter immediately on our website
and to the House by way of a short report. We will look closely
at the text of the Reform Treaty once it is made available.
May I once again thank you for your co-operation
in this important scrutiny exercise.
I am copying this letter to Michael Connarty MP,
Chairman to the Commons Scrutiny Committee, Alistair Doherty,
Clerk to the Commons Scrutiny Committee; Tom Hines, Foreign and
Commonwealth Office and Les Saunders, Cabinet Office. It will
also be made available to all members of the Lords who attended
that evidence session on 12 July.
Lord Grenfell
Chairman of the Select Committee on the European
Union
17 July 2007
| 
