|
Column Number: 003
Standing Committee
on the Convention
Wednesday 12 February 2003
[Mr. Frank Cook in the Chair]
Committee on the Convention
2.30 pm
The Chairman: The Committee has up to one and a half hours to hear statements from the parliamentary representatives and alternate representatives and to put questions to them. There will then be a debate on the motion. I shall put the question on that motion, if not previously concluded, when the Committee has sat for two and a half hours. In addition to members of the Committee, any other Member of the House of Commons or House of Lords may ask questions and/or participate in the debate. I know that many Members will want to participate, so I hope that questions and contributions to the debate will be brief so as to allow as many of them as possible to participate.
In the past, we have had problems observing the time-honoured protocols of the House in referring to other Members and the comments that they may make. To facilitate proper behaviour in that regard, copies of ''Dod's'' have been sprinkled around the Benches, to which Members are welcome to refer. If they do not, I shall be less than pleased.
2.32 pm
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston): Today's meeting is extremely significant, because much has happened since we last met. Three reports have been produced, we had a debate on the Floor of the House in early December, and my colleagues and I have given evidence to various Committees. It is also the week after the first 16 draft articles were tabled at the Convention.
This is the most significant constitutional debate in the European context since 1957 and the treaty of Rome. The furore over the first 16 articles showed to me that not only the public but a number of Governments are unaware of current commitments under the existing treaties. The Convention was criticised on items that were merely restating existing treaty commitments. We are debating a further possible extension when the difficult negotiations of Nice have hardly been completed. I am concerned that there is a lack of understanding of what the European Union is capable of doing on our behalf and what it is accountable for.
The treaty articles are open to amendment and to further debate. This is our opportunity to ensure that the parliamentary representatives can convey the wishes of Parliament on the specific articles that have been tabled. However, I have two words of caution. The precise meaning of some of these treaty articles and their implications will depend on what part 2 of the constitution specifies. For example, the listing has public health as a shared competence. It is clear which aspects of public health are shared competences, but
Column Number: 004
the majority are not, and part 2 will clarify that. We as representatives will welcome clear markers from Members of Parliament if they feel that we need to take great care when part 2 is drafted so that it reflects their wishes.
As the Praesidium proceeds to draft the treaty, we will be allowed to take a representative with us to advise us on legal matters. I have chosen Mr. Speaker's legal counsel as adviser. He has had considerable experience in Whitehall, and now works in the House. I felt that he could provide me with an historical perspective, which I believe is necessary for that task.
When the Convention started, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing said clearly that no part of the acquis should be untouchable. For many of us, that was an indication that the acquis could not only expand, but reduce if necessary. The dynamics of the Convention have been such that those who say that there are areas where Europe's action has been quite sufficient, and that we should consider drawing back, are virtually non-existent. The dynamics of the debate stem from organised groups such as those in the European Parliament who, unlike us, have succeeded in overcoming party political divides in order to pursue one agenda, and one only.
There has also been a tendency to describe arrangements as the status quo when that is debatable. What is described as the status quo in the draft articles is the status quo in treaty articles, plus the abuse of those powers over a number of years. I shall give an example. When we discussed a replacement for article 308, which clearly allows the treaty to act beyond its capacity in pursuing the implementation of the single market, I questioned the existing drafting. It was argued back to me that as the majority of cases in which that article has been used in the past few years relate to Bosnia, Macedonia and the Balkans, and were therefore external action, it is wholly unreasonable to say that the powers in article 308 should not be extended beyond implementing the single market, because they entail external relations. I should be interested to hear what the Committee has to say to that.
The second point, which goes beyond the document before members of the Committee, is an indication that at the next Praesidium meeting this Friday we shall discuss the replacement, by a process of simplification, of the legal instruments available to the European Union. It is our task to simplify, and to have 28 different bases of legal action is beyond comprehension. Frankly, I would have been worried by anybody who understood what was going on, although I do not think that there is anyone who fully comprehends all the various methods.
The matter has serious implications, however, because simplification will involve the removal of a well protected pillar structure. At the moment, pillar 1 clearly relates to Community obligations; pillars 2 and 3 relate to justice and home affairs and to external relations and defence, and are outside the capability of having legal instruments that would create legally binding Acts. The simplification process means that we have to be extremely careful that those areas that the
Column Number: 005
majority of Governments want to remain intergovernmental are properly protected.
I take my role as the representative of the House extremely seriously. This is the first time that parliamentarians have had the opportunity to be part of treaty negotiations. If members of the Committee want to know more about the protocol mechanism on subsidiarity or any other matter, it will be better if I respond to their specific questions, because then I will know what concerns them most and what is the subject of their discussions. I see myself, first and foremost, as the voice of parliamentarians, but I am also the representative of UK interests.
2.38 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells): We have sat for nearly a year in the Convention, and we have now reached a critical stage with the publication of the first 16 articles of the draft constitution for Europe. The document before us in annexe 1 is an alarming publication. Certainly, if enacted in anything like its present form, it will go well beyond what any British Government have said is acceptable. It will have profound implications for our parliamentary democracy, and it will certainly represent the creation of a form of European state.
That is best illustrated by the following examples. Article 13 of the published draft states:
''The Union shall coordinate the economic policies of the Member States''.
That is completely different from existing treaties, for example, article 99 states:
''Member States shall regard their economic policies as matters of common concern.''
It is obvious from those two quotes that we have on our hands something completely different and that the constitution will profoundly alter the nature of the European Union and the role of member states.
Under this draft, the Union has ceased to be a treaty arrangement between nation states that come together for certain common purposes. Instead, the constitution will establish a Union with its own separate unitary structure and its own legal personality to which it will give certain rights and powers. That shows up again in the part of the draft dealing with competences. I should say that ''competences'' is Euro-speak for ''powers''. I was on the working group called ''complementary competences'', and one of my minor achievements was to get the name changed to ''supporting measures'' or ''supporting powers''.
Article 13 of the draft makes it clear that it is the constitution, not member states, that confers powers on the Union. That is a significant change because, up to now, it has always been assumed and claimed that the powers of the Community and the Union are delegated to them by member states. That will no longer be the case. The draft makes it clear that the constitution gives the Union, which is separate from member states, certain powers.
Column Number: 006
The draft also makes it clear, in article 10, that there will be a list of competences exclusive to the Union in which
''only the Union may legislate''.
Article 11 lists those competences, which include a common commercial policy. That is very general, and it certainly goes well beyond anything in the existing treaties.
Significantly, the second part of article 11 gives the Union exclusive powers to conclude international agreements when they concern domestic policies in which the Union is involved. The policy areas to which that refers are listed in article 12, and, surprisingly, they include the
''area of freedom, security and justice''—
which is another term for criminal justice matters—as well as transport, energy, social policy, the environment and public health. In all those shared competences member states can legislate only where the Union does not do so. To repeat the point about international agreements, only the Union can represent and negotiate on behalf of member states on those domestic policies in which it has involvement.
By any standard that is a colossal extension of the powers of the Union, and it shows that the constitution will not make a clear and final division between the powers of the Union and those of member states. Instead, there will be no realistic or clear check. A new constitutional doctrine will accelerate the transfer of decision making from member states to the Union.
This entire exercise was supposed to be undertaken in the name of democracy. The very reason that the Convention has sat for the past year has been to create a more democratic Europe that is closer to its citizens—that phrase comes from the Laeken declaration that set up the Convention. We do not create a Union closer to the citizen by removing more powers to a separate body that is to be established with its own structure and legal personality.
I have many other concerns that may interest Members. I shall mention in particular the incorporation of the EU charter of fundamental rights in the constitution. That is contrary to what the British Government have argued for. They are arguing for it too mildly—they should have been far more assertive earlier on. We have learned that if we say that we can accept something but not something else, the EU pockets what we agree to and ignores what we do not agree to. The result is before us in this draft constitution.
| 
