Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-44)
Mr Jim Murphy MP, Mr Mike Thomas and Ms Shan Morgan
12 JULY 2007
Q40 Lord Marlesford: Could I ask
you, Minister, about something which was of great concern in the
original draft Constitutional Treaty, the so-called `passerelle'
clause, because this was seen as a very big change, the making
it possible to move from unanimity and, therefore, give up a veto
on any aspect of policy by simple unanimity of the Council of
Ministers rather than by treaty change. Are there any ways in
which the passerelle clause, as included in the new IGC Mandate,
differs from the passerelle clause in the Constitution and do
you in fact see the passerelle clause as being something which
can be raised in further negotiation?
Mr Murphy: The specific point on the passerelle
clause is that I know that there has been concern about how this
has evolved over recent months, and I was asked again about this
in the adjournment debate in Westminster Hall yesterday afternoon
on the European Treaty. I may invite Shan to offer her experiences
through the processes, the so-called `focal point', but the fact
is that it does not give carte blanche for the type of
ill-considered and inappropriate changes that Member States and
your Lordships, I am sure, may be concerned about on this basis,
that the UK and other Member States of course will still have
the ability to block any such proposal because it remains an issue
of unanimity and we are very, very, very clear about that, and
it will remain the subject of unanimity. Perhaps I can ask Shan
to add to that.
Ms Morgan: I think the only thing I would add
to what the Minister has said is that, when this passerelle clause
was negotiated in the 2004 IGC, we were satisfied that there were
sufficient safeguards included to protect UK interests, so that
was a provision that we and our lawyers were then content with.
We will obviously be looking very closely at the wording of the
passerelle when the draft Treaty comes out, but, as your Lordship
will appreciate, although the IGC Mandate is very detailed, it
is not the same as looking at the detail of the legal text of
the Treaty, so we will be examining that extremely carefully to
make sure that the safeguards that we were confident about in
the Constitutional Treaty would remain and that, as the Minister
said, we would maintain unanimity on the operation of that process.
Q41 Lord Roper: In the Mandate, there
is an annex which is dealing with the judicial corporation in
civil matters and particularly family law which suggests that,
when the passerelle operates there, this is on page 28, there
will be a red card available to national parliaments and that
they can, within six months of the matter going through the Council,
object to it and, if that is done, it will not come into effect.
Is that exclusive to that particular section where the passerelle
is used or does such a red card apply elsewhere?
Mr Murphy: The short answer is yes, but, if
I may, I will invite Mr Thomas to add to that.
Mr Thomas: I am not sure that I can add to it,
my Lord Chairman. It is confined to that particular part of the
Treaty, it is not a general red card.
Q42 Lord Marlesford: If I may follow that
up, my Lord Chairman, it was one of the issues which did cause
most concern because really I suppose almost ever since the famous
Luxembourg Compromise of January 1996—many decades ago—the
change of veto power on any issue other than by Treaty change
was seen as a very sensitive matter and there was a worry that
the draft Constitution, as it emerged from the 2004 IGC, had greatly
weakened what would happen, despite what your colleague said a
moment ago. I am very glad to hear that you can negotiate possibly
some form of amendment to strengthen this happening and the parliamentary
red card issue seems to me a very good way out, as Lord Roper
mentioned, and perhaps I could suggest that you might consider
extending that to any issue to which the passerelle applied.
Mr Murphy: With your permission, my Lord Chairman,
as it is a supplementary, I will return to the Committee on it
on the basis, as I made very clear at the outset, that we were
going to resist attempts by others to reopen substantial parts
of the process and it would be inconsistent for me to contradict
what I said at the beginning. My response to that is that I am
aware of the issue on the basis that it has been raised with me
on a number of occasions already over the past two weeks in my
role as Minister for Europe and, with your permission, my Lord
Chairman, I will return to the Committee with some thoughts on
that.
Chairman: Thank
you very much indeed. I will allow one more question and then
I think we have to draw this session to a close.
Q43 Lord Leach of Fairford: Could
I go back to the rather broad-brush question at the beginning.
I think you said, Minister, earlier that the Government would
seek to show that there are substantial differences from the Constitutional
Treaty in the new Treaty. I have here, and I will not waste time
by reading them out, statements from 13 Heads of EU Governments,
two EU Foreign Ministers, the European Parliament, the Commission
and Giscard, who of course played such a large part in the Constitution,
to the effect that the Treaty is the same as the Constitution,
or substantially the same, and they estimate it as 90 to 99 per
cent the same with purely cosmetic differences. Does the Government
disagree with the judgment of these eminent leaders or are you
relying for that statement on the British opt-outs so that what
you are really saying is that, so far as Britain is concerned,
it is substantially different? I was not quite clear where you
were coming from on that.
Mr Murphy: My Lord Chairman, I think there are
two points to make in response to that. One is, and I do not think
your Lordships would thank me for inviting a prolonged conversation
about the kind of interplay between substance and quantity in
terms of contents of the respective treaties, but the most substantial
point is that for other Member States this Treaty looks significantly
different because for them it is significantly different because
they have not negotiated, in the way that we have, the series
of opt-ins, the legally binding protocols and the extension of
the various opt-ins that we already have in place, so that is
the reason why. Again, I do not wish to second-guess this whole
process and I am not going to second-guess comments by other EU
leaders, politicians or spokespeople as I think that takes me
into all sorts of dangerous territory, but the general point is
that they will be speaking from their perspective on what they
signed up to. What we, as a Government, signed up to is substantially
different from many of these others who have been quoted and it
is a difference in great substance from the previous Constitutional
Treaty, but I am aware of these quotes and I am almost able to
repeat all 13 of them, so often have I heard them, but it is the
case that that is our assessment of it, that they have signed
up to something which is substantially different, as they are
entirely entitled to do so.
Lord Leach of Fairford:
I will take that as a yes. Thank you.
Q44 Chairman: I think we should draw
this to a close now. I want to thank you very much indeed, Minister.
Could I just let you know, and you may already know this, that
we are meeting with the Portuguese Ambassador on 17 July and,
after we have taken evidence from him, we are going to have a
discussion in this Committee which we hope will lead to an agreement
on a statement from the Committee which we can communicate to
the Government and to the House and to all interested parties,
including people like Lord Howell of Guildford and others, but
certainly around the House to those who are interested, so that
we have on record our views on this matter. I think it is very
important that we can feel confident, and I think we do feel confident,
that the Government will keep us informed during the process,
and we discussed that at the very beginning of the session, of
what is going on in the IGC and that the less that it is deemed
confidential, the better, but anyway we will hope for the best,
and of course that, as soon as the text is available, it will
be presented to both Houses. In the meantime, I do thank you,
on behalf of the Committee, very sincerely for being very comprehensive
and frank in your responses to our questions. It has been extraordinarily
helpful to us and will certainly help us a great deal when we
get down to the job on the 17th, after we have seen the Ambassador,
to come up with a communication which we can present to the Government.
May I thank you, Shan Morgan and Mike Thomas for being with us
and may I, on behalf of the whole Committee, wish you well, Minister,
in your position and particularly well in the conduct of negotiations,
on behalf of the UK, with your colleagues in the IGC. Thank you
very much indeed.
|
