|
Column Number: 001
Standing Committee
on the Convention
Monday 16 June 2003
[Mr. Frank Cook in the Chair]
The Future of Europe
7.19 pm
The Chairman: The Committee has acquired its required quorum. I should like to point out that extreme activists, of whatever political persuasion, have known for generations that it is possible to progress matters in two ways. They can either engage forcefully in an issue, or they can walk away from it, thereby rendering meetings inquorate. We have had difficulties with the quorum at every sitting of the Committee so far. This is the final sitting—the sitting before the summit at Thessaloniki—so I hope that when Divisions take place, or at any other time, hon. Members will bear it in mind that their presence is essential, as we have the bare minimum at present. That gets rid of the sour grapes.
The air in the Room is somewhat humid, so I will permit hon. Members to divest themselves of their upper garments; not all of them, just the upper garment.
The Committee has up to one and a half hours to hear statements from the parliamentary representatives and the alternate representatives and to put questions to them. The motion will then be debated. I will put the question on the motion, if the debate has not previously concluded, when the Committee has sat for two and a half hours.
In addition to members of the Committee, any other Members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords may ask questions and/or participate in the debate. Many hon. Members want to participate, so I hope that questions and contributions will be brief to allow as many hon. Members to participate as possible.
7.22 pm
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston): Thank you, Mr. Cook. I also thank hon. Members for being here. I am delighted that there is such forceful engagement in debate, certainly by those on the Government Benches. I wish that there were an equal representation of Opposition Members.
If this were a football match, I would say that we had reached the end of the first half and were going into injury time, the second half being the inter-governmental conference. Before us is part I of the constitutional treaty. Part II is on the charter of fundamental rights, with a preamble. Part III, which explains in detail to which areas qualified majority voting, co-legislation and all the other procedures will apply, has not been finalised; nor has part IV, much to my regret. Those final provisions will include such important areas as how future treaties will be revised.
Provided that Heads of Government give permission for an extension of that work in Thessaloniki at the end of this week, the Convention
Column Number: 002
will resume for a further few weeks in July. That will be the injury time. We can then move to the inter-governmental conference.
I am rather disappointed that the contemporary translation of Pericles's funeral oration is not used in the preamble, because that uses the line:
''Ours is an Administration for the many, not the few.''
Government Members may recognise that phrase.
So far we have had not only Government representatives, but parliamentary representatives. I hope that members of the Committee will not make the mistake that members of the Convention have made towards the latter stages, which is to forget that the uniqueness of the Convention is that parliamentarians are involved as representatives of Parliament as an institution. First and foremost, they should consider accountability and how scrutiny of the Executive by parliamentarians is conducted. Of course, we have our views on the institutional structures and everything else, but we should not overlook that parliamentary scrutiny. There will be a further debate on the Floor of the House on Wednesday in the run-up to the Thessaloniki summit.
We will all find things in the text with which we agree and disagree, and everyone will feel that if they had written the constitution on their own, they would have produced a better document. That is in the nature of debate, but is it a document that the British Government and Parliament can work with at an IGC? I think that it is, and I hope that the extension of the debate will not lead to changes of the draft on future treaty revisions.
The past few weeks have also shown the distinct party political differences of the House's representatives, who up to this stage have been extremely good at keeping one line. In that context, I apologise on behalf of Lord Tomlinson, who is as we speak across the river having a knee replacement operation. He has been a staunch supporter and, at times when I appeared unreasonable, helpfully thumped the table and drew a lot of the fire on to him rather than me.
Members of the Committee may wish either to congratulate its representatives or not. A division has appeared in relation to the extension of QMV and future treaty provisions. My view is that taxation and social security should stay firmly where they are; that is, with unanimity. The same applies to foreign policy, unless it moves into areas where external relations and trade are involved, which is a different system altogether. However, Committee members may wish to congratulate the Liberal Democrats. Andrew Duff said on their behalf:
''All members of the Liberal caucus today support the package of proposals''.
He went on to say that he hopes that one day we will be able to
''convince many more of my countrymen and women to shed their obsessive nationalism, to become more trustworthy partners of the European Union, and to make of our own country a modern, European place''.
I beg to disagree with him; I think this is a modern and European place and I do not think our nationalism is
Column Number: 003
outdated. We are protecting areas of decision making in the United Kingdom as it is.
It is for that reason that I will fiercely oppose any changes to future treaty amendments. However, other representatives take a different view. They may like to explain that to the House and see whether the House agrees.
I want to draw the Committee's attention to two aspects of the document. I deeply object to clause 24(4), which is what is called a passerelle clause. It allows the European Council by unanimity to decide that unanimity provisions can move to qualified majority voting. That may be acceptable to Governments, because Heads of Government make the decisions. As a parliamentarian, I find it extremely difficult to accept that Parliament's right to have a say in the matter should be waived in such a cavalier fashion, particularly given that part III of the constitution is a precise list for which unanimity remains.
Similarly, there are some proposals that I do not find particularly offensive on the face of it; however, I have some difficulty in explaining why I should support them. One is the citizens' initiative. We are creating a situation in which a significant number of European citizens from a significant number of countries can directly petition the Commission, but there is no similar right for national Parliaments to petition the Commission. The European Parliament already has that, but as a parliamentarian I do not see why I should support a measure that circumvents Parliament. That is not an extension of democracy in my view.
However, there are a number of extremely useful—for the United Kingdom and for us as parliamentarians—supporting measures in the document. It is the first time that anyone will be able to look at and understand the way the European Union makes laws. It is the first time that we have strengthened the one part of the constitutional triangle that has been structurally weakened; the Council of Ministers. There is an end to the rotation of presidencies based almost on alphabetical order every six months, which was not sensible.
The House's representatives, who in the past 15 months have experienced three different kinds of presidencies, have seen a vivid illustration of why that system is not terribly helpful or useful. It allows Heads of Government to take a strategic view of where the EU has an interest and where member states have an interest. As an example, in all the months in the run up to the war on Iraq, the Council of Ministers never discussed differences of opinion.
I do not think that the new chair or President of the European Council would ever have been able to overcome the divisions on Iraq. But we would not have had a rather unsightly spat and we would have been far more constructive in our differences. It also allows us, for the first time—even within this Chamber—to have a proper debate about the European Union; on where we have benefited from it
Column Number: 004
and where we find fault with it. It should not be a shouting match between Europhobes and Europhiles who say that it is either good or bad.
The House faces huge challenges; if the protocol on national Parliaments is implemented, we will have an early sight of the annual legislative programme of the Commission, which the whole House should discuss. We will have more advanced information on planned legislation and we need to look seriously at how the Select Committees work and to take things on board much earlier. We need a serious look at how we work with British Members of the European Parliament in order to be constructive in the representation of our citizens. We can no longer hide behind a veil of ignorance when matters come from the European Union that may require reflection and approval.
This is a good document; it has its faults, which the Government recognise, and to which many other Governments object. Earlier, I referred to clause 24(4) and my objection to the passerelle clause; 17 out of the 28 Government representatives on the convention also objected to it. Some of the scepticism is not uniquely British; there is considerable support.
I welcome the views of the House, especially on matters that will still be open to debate in the next three weeks. Hon. Members may want to give us, as their representatives, some idea of the stance we should take.
7.31 pm
| 
