35TH REPORT: THE EU REFORM TREATY: WORK
IN PROGRESS
Letter from Jim Murphy, Minister for Europe,
Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Chairman
The Government welcomes the Committee's report
on the European Union Reform Treaty. The expertise, judgement
and analysis of the Committee is, as always, very valuable and
the Government welcomes the positive and significant contribution
the Committee makes in the European field and will continue to
make in the future.
The Government would like to offer the following
comments on the Committee's recommendations and conclusions:
Paragraph 8: We recommend that the Government
report to Parliament, after the December European Council, on
the implications, both in terms of scrutiny and transparency and
of effectiveness in agreeing policy, of an IGC proceeding on the
basis of such a tight mandate. The report should also cover the
implications for scrutiny of how the mandate was drawn up and
presented to the European Council.
The Foreign Secretary outlined the process,
and the reasons for the unique approach, leading to the publication
of the IGC mandate during his evidence session with the Foreign
Affairs Committee on 10 October 2007:
"On process, I would say—obviously
I was not the Foreign Secretary in the first half of this year—that,
if one steps back, it is clear that Mrs Merkel was dealt a pretty
tough hand when she took over the presidency on 1 January. There
had been 18 months of this so-called "period of reflection"
or "pause for reflection", and the debate had moved
on in a significant and positive way in that, in the words of
the Dutch Council of State, the centralising and federalising
ambitions that had motivated some of those who had pushed for
the constitution had been rebuffed. But she had 27 member state
Governments who were having their own debates, and she had a tough
hand in trying to bring them together.
Mrs Merkel decided to approach it with
a distinctive—I think that that would be a diplomatic way
of putting it—approach, which was to talk to all 27 Governments
bilaterally through the focal points group, which actually met
four times not three; I think that we have alerted the Clerk to
that. She had those bilateral discussions and then, on 19 June,
she produced the draft treaty. I say that that was distinctive;
it reflected the difficulties of the hand that she was dealt.
But I do not move away at all from what the former Prime Minister
said after the European Council in June: that Mrs Merkel really
did an outstanding job in pulling together a mandate for an intergovernmental
conference that reflected and respected the different interests
of different nations."
Each Presidency is, of course, free to
decide their own approach to co-ordination of negotiations. The
German Presidency approach was relatively unusual, but resulted
in a tightly defined IGC mandate that the succeeding Portugese
Presidency was able to translate successfully into the text of
a new Treaty. I should emphasise that the IGC discussions resulted
in a Treaty text that reflected—in full—the UK's red
lines as agreed at the June 2007 European Council.
Since agreement of the IGC Mandate at the
June European Council, all IGC papers and draft Treaty texts have
been forwarded to your Committee, the Clerks of the Commons European
Scrutiny and Foreign Affairs Committee and the libraries of both
Houses. Ministers have attended nine evidence sessions with the
EU scrutiny Committees and the Foreign Affairs Committee between
June and December and Ministers remain available to give evidence
as required.
In parallel with reforming the EU institutions
to make them more effective, we believe that it is time to consider
our domestic arrangements for scrutiny of EU business. The Government
intends to bring forward proposals shortly, following consultation
with stakeholders including from the House of Lords, that will
aim to improve the scrutiny process in Westminster.
Paragraph 9: The Government have, however, made
texts promptly available to Parliament as they have emerged, which
we welcome.
We welcome the Committee's comments. The
Government has been committed to keeping Parliament informed during
the IGC.
Paragraph 10: We recommend that the text agreed
at the Informal Summit on 18 October be formally deposited in
both Houses of Parliament, together with a full explanatory memorandum
by tbe Government.
Treaty texts are not usually deposited
for scrutiny. The final version of the Treaty was laid before
Parliament, with an accompanying Explanatory Memorandum, on 17
December.
Paragraph 15: We accordingly recommend that,
as soon as possible, the Government deposit in Parliament a full
and thorough analysis of the changes which the Reform Treaty,
on the basis of existing texts, would bring about, drawing attention
to differences from existing Treaty provisions. This should include
both a consolidated version of the Treaties as amended by the
Reform Treaty and an in-depth policy analysis of the effect of
the changes. We expect that all Departments would be involved
in the preparation of this material.
The Government has agreed to provide a
consolidated text of the Treaties as amended by the Treaty of
Lisbon, along with a table indicating how the Lisbon Treaty amends
the existing Treaties. Several Government departments have submitted
written evidence on the effect of the Reform Treaty in specific
areas, and Ministers and officials will also be giving evidence
to the various sub-Committees. The Minister for Europe gave evidence
on the institutional changes on 18 December. Other Government
Departments including, DIUS, DWP, DCSF, DH, BERR, DCMS and DEFRA
have submitted written evidence.
Paragraph 31: While we accepted these reassurances,
we considered it necessary to ensure that the phraseology was
correct while the interests of national parliaments were appropriately
presented in the text. If the language were not changed the criticism
could be made that the Reform Treaty inappropriately sought to
prescribe functions for sovereign national parliaments. We were
accordingly pleased to have heard that the word "shall"
has been eliminated from the English text.
The Government welcomes the Committee's
comments. The Government is confident that the Reform Treaty imposes
no obligations on national Parliaments. Parliament's concerns
were noted and we secured changes to the text to make that clear.
We are confident that there is now no ambiguity. That position
has been acknowledged by all Member States and by the Presidency.
Portuguese Foreign Minister Amado wrote to the Foreign Secretary
to confirm that:
"this article imposes no obligation on
national Parliaments and is purely declaratory in nature".
The Reform Treaty gives new powers to national
Parliaments to scrutinise EU proposals directly; it does not impose
obligations.
The Protocol on the role of national Parliaments
refers to the need for the European Parliament to cooperate with
national Parliaments. The Treaty does not impose an obligation
on individual Parliament to take part in such cooperation. In
fact, interparliamentary cooperation already takes place, through
the COSAC mechanism established by national parliaments themselves;
the article reflects this reality.
Paragraph 35: We recommend that the Government explain
how the EU institutions covered by the Article other than the
Commission (eg the Court of Justice) will fulfil their obligations
under this Article.
The new Protocol to the 2007 Treaty on
the Role of National Parliaments in the EU addresses the circulation
of draft legislative acts initiated not only by the Commission
but also those originating from the EP, which is to forward its
proposals to national parliaments directly, and those originating
from a group of Member States, the Court of Justice, the ECB or
EIB, which are to be forwarded to national Parliaments by the
Council. According to Article 4 of the Treaty, an eight-week period
is to elapse between a draft legislative act being made available
to national parliaments and the date it is placed on a provisional
agenda for the council, with exceptions for cases of urgency.
The new protocol differs from the current
Protocol on the role of national parliaments in the EU, which
expressly applied only to Commission proposals for legislation,
with a six-week lapse before being placed on the agenda.
While we do not yet know what mechanisms
they will put in place they may well be modelled on the Commission's
current procedures.
Paragraph 37: The Government need to explain
clearly the role they see for national parliaments under the passerelle
provisions and how they will be applied in the UK.
The European Union (Amendment) Bill contains
a clause which provides that where any draft decision under the
listed provisions (which includes both the two "general"
passerelles as well as the other specific provisions in the Treaty
which allow moves from unanimity to qualified majority) comes
before the European Council or the Council, the United Kingdom
may not agree to the adoption of the decision, unless Parliamentary
approval has first been given. That approval must be signified
by the agreement of both Houses of Parliament to motions
approving the Government's intention to support the decision.
Paragraph 39: How the European Parliament and
national parliaments co-operate is a matter for them. The Conference
of Speakers currently performs this role and the Committee has
supported them in doing so as that forum ensures an appropriate
balance between the interests of national parliaments and the
European Parliament.
The Government agrees with the Committee
and welcomes its ongoing contribution to the work of COSAC.
Paragraph 42: The Committee welcomes the extension
of the period from six to eight weeks. The Government should provide
clarification that the clock does indeed begin only when a document
is available in all languages.
Article 4 of the Reform Treaty's Protocol
on the role of national parliaments states that:
"An eight-week period shall elapse between
a draft legislative act being made available to national Parliaments
in the official languages of the Union and the date when it is
placed on a provisional agenda for the Council for its adoption
or for adoption of a position under a legislative procedure."
Paragraph 46: We recommend that the Government
explain why the text of Article 8c inserted by the Reform Treaty
only mentions respect for subsidiarity and not proportionality:
the Protocol covers both.
Subsidiarity involves the assessment of
whether the objectives of a particular measures can sufficiently
be achieved by Member States, either at central level or regional
and local level. It is therefore particularly important, and appropriate,
that National Parliaments are given a direct role in relation
to this assessment.
Compliance with the principle of proportionality
is assessed and enforced on the same basis of other general principles
of EU law.
Paragraph 51: We recommend that the Government
establish a mechanism to ensure that the details of the operation
of these procedures are discussed and agreed with both Houses
of Parliament.
The Government is committed to ensuring
that the new provisions in relation to National Parliaments in
the Treaty operate effectively, and will work with both Houses
of Parliament to make sure that they operate effectively.
14 January 2008
| 
