11 DECEMBER 2003

RT HON JACK STRAW MP, MR KIM DARROCH CMG AND MR JOHN SAWERS CMG

  Q20 Mr Pope: I had anticipated part of that answer. I have a feeling, but I have not checked this, that in my maiden speech to the House I called for a referendum on Maastricht, so my track record is a good one here. The point that I really want to make is that I do not think it is good enough to say that we are a parliamentary democracy and we do not do this. I think we have had 30-odd referenda since this Government came to office. My point is: if it is important enough for the people of Hartlepool to choose whether or not they have an elected mayor, it should be good enough for the people of Britain to choose whether or not they sign up to the EU Constitution.

  Mr Straw: Mr Pope, I understand that argument. I do not happen to agree with it because what is being decided in respect of an elected mayor for Hartlepool, which is an important issue for the people of Hartlepool, is whether fundamentally to change the system of government, sometimes on a borough basis, sometimes for a region, sometimes for nations like Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Certainly, whether we should join the European Union or leave it is an equivalent issue obviously for the UK as a whole, and also whether we should maintain our own currency or we should join the single currency, as well as the economic arguments, which have major constitutional implications as well. Referenda are appropriate there. But I do not happen to believe that having a referendum on changes to the way in which an existing institution operates is either necessary or desirable. I think that is Parliament's job. Since you use the analogy of a mayor for Hartlepool, having a referendum on whether those voters in a town have an elected mayor or an executive committee or a different kind of structure seems to me to be entirely appropriate, but Parliament has never suggested that if the powers of the mayor are going to be changed or the financial structure in which the mayor operates is going to be changed, that should be the subject of a referendum, and that is what we are talking about here. I also say that if you examine what is in this document, because it is likely to be amended, then I believe that the House of Lords Select Committee on Europe was correct when they said, and they have said it twice now, that this, if anything, shifts the balance between the European Union and the Member States in favour of the Member States. The opportunities are there for that to happen. As I indicated in my introduction, I want to make sure that that does happen.

  Q21 Mr Pope: If I am going to lose the constitutional argument to you, then I think at least there is a political case to be made for a referendum. The problem here for the Government is that it is going to allow the case for a referendum to be made by eurosceptics and leave those of us who are supporters of the European Union in a difficult position. I think there would be a strong case for going for a referendum, being brave about it. The Prime Minister has said that we are at out best when we are at our boldest. We should be bold about this and go and make a positive case for the European Union in general and for the constitution in particular. I think the Government is missing an opportunity to put a positive case for Europe and this Constitution. Go out and sell it to the British people and have a referendum on it and we will win it.

  Mr Straw: I note your view on this, Mr Pope. I happen to disagree with you. We have made a very positive case for Europe, but I also make a positive case for the British Parliament. Kenneth Clarke has said very recently in an excellent pamphlet, which I commend particularly to the Conservative members of this Committee, that it is a job for Parliament. That is exactly what Parliament is here for. The result of detailed parliamentary examination of this already has been, in my view, significantly to improve the Government's negotiating position and the outcome, as we say, on energy. The more we discuss it, the more I believe the public will be reassured.

  Q22 Mr Maples: Following the same point, Foreign Secretary, I will put it to you that there is something different about this. It may be just amending and collating an existing text but the attention the Government has paid to this, the amount of documents that you have published, White Papers, debates that you have instigated, is far in excess of whatever happened over Amsterdam or Nice, both treaties for which you were responsible. So I think the Government is treating it differently, and I would believe rightly so. However, I just want to ask you two specific things. Article 1 of the proposed Constitution says, unless this has been changed and I am not aware of it: "Reflecting the will of the citizens and states of Europe to build a common future . . ." It does not say "reflecting the will of the Governments of the states of Europe"; it says "reflecting the will of the citizens and states of Europe to build a common future". This Constitution established the European Union. How do you know it reflects the will of the citizens of Europe if you do not ask them?

  Mr Straw: You assume that the democratic governments of the 25 States which were to sign up to this democratically represent their electorates' interests and that they would lose at a following election. That is how democratic accountability works and that is, Mr Maples, the consistent position of British governments down the ages in respect of all treaties to which we have signed up. I may point out to you that in 1972 the Conservatives then, who decided that we join the European Union, wholly resisted a referendum. It was left to the Labour Party to have a referendum, quite rightly, in 1975 on whether to withdraw. The Conservative Party have never ever had a referendum on any issue of any kind.

  Q23 Mr Maples: We are now talking about this Treaty. I think there probably should have been a referendum at some stage in this process. This is the second point I want to come to. If you sought a change to Article 1, which said "reflecting the will of the governments", then that seems to be to be perfectly adequate, but it is not what it says. It says "reflecting the will of the citizens". I have not been asked, nor has anybody in my constituency. I do not see how you can sign a document which says that this reflects the will of the citizens when you do not ask.

  Mr Straw: I think it does, or would do if we get there, and I think obviously there is a question of how exactly you test the will of citizens. You know very well that in representative parliamentary democracy we do not have plebiscites on every issue but on the ones of absolutely critical importance to people. Parliamentary democracy would break down. I am expressing the very tradition here of a view which the Conservatives have long lived by and they have always resisted referenda.

  Q24 Mr Maples: We can come to that point. A cynic would say that actually this Government has led a mass of referenda on the things it is pretty confident it can win. The reason it will not hold one on this issue is because it is frightened it will lose.

  Mr Straw: As a matter of fact, that has not been the case. We have indeed held referenda, and I have already explained the circumstances. The referendum to determine whether Scotland wished to have a parliament was decided by a very large majority; there was a broad consensus in Scotland. You will also remember that, also far as the Welsh Assembly was concerned, I think that the margin there was 7,000 votes. If you have a referendum, then you put the choice before the people. So far as the euro is concerned, we have said, because it obviously involves constitutional implications as well as economic ones, that we will put it before the people and it is a matter for them.

  Q25 Mr Maples: I have one or two more fundamental points and it really follows on from what Mr Pope said at the end. Regardless of which side of this argument you are on, regardless whether you think this Treaty is a good thing or not or the European Union is a good thing or not, I would suggest to you that we have come an enormous way since the 1975 referendum. The European Union through a series of treaties—Single European Act and Maastricht which you mentioned which were done under Conservative governments, Nice, Amsterdam and now this Treaty under a Labour government—is all unrecognisable as what people voted on in 1975. The country is clearly divided over this. I do not know who would win a referendum, but it is not going to be 90:10 either way; it is going to be 60:40, or 55:45, or whatever. I would suggest to you that if we are going to continue down this road, at some point there ought to be a referendum about this. People ought to be asked, otherwise this will not have legitimacy. The decisions that we make as a country for the future depend crucially on whether we are part, to my mind, of an ever closer union in Europe or whether we are not. We see this the whole time. You must see the conflicts as Foreign Secretary and which way we are going to go down on this one. I would put to you that as a nation we need to settle that. At some point in this row of treaties which brings us to this ever closer Union we are going to have to ask the people of this country that question. Is not now the time to do it? You do not have a proper political basis for what you are trying to do.

  Mr Straw: As I have already explained the position of the British Government on a referendum, and done so on many occasions on the Floor of the House, I note with yesterday's debate that a lot of the steam is going out of argument for a referendum from some of its proponents as they actually read what is in here, read what is proposed and realise that what is proposed is much less than, say, Maastricht or in the Single European Act. I do not accept that the European Union today is unrecognisable compared to the European Union that was joined by this country under the 1972 European Communities Act. In fact, I think it really is rather recognisable. The major institutions are the same. There were significant changes, I accept, made in terms of the single market QMV in the 1986 Single European Act and in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, which provided for a single currency in respect of that. That was the most significant thing provided for by Maastricht but also CFSP as well we have ourselves accepted and proposed that there should be a referendum if we come to propose that we should join the euro. I do not accept that. I think the way that you build up public confidence in the European Union is by ensuring that the European Union operates more efficiently day by day, that people can see where it adds value to what our voters expect from government. I think the single market does. There are other aspects of what the European Union does that probably do not add value and, where they are not adding value, then we need to be engaged on the kind of exercise that the Chancellor announced yesterday in terms of deregulation, in which other Members who have the presidency between now and 2005 are going to become engaged. I understand the point you are making. I simply do not agree with it. What this document proposes is a much clearer system for running the European Union. One of the ways in which it actually will ensure that influence goes back to Member States is by the institutional changes that we have proposed, which are to ensure that there is a full-time presidency of the European Council whose purpose will be to co-ordinate the role of the decisions of Member States to be sure that they are much more in practice involved in laying down the agenda for the Union than is the Commission.

  Q26 Andrew Mackinlay: On the question of qualified majority voting and the conflict of Spain and Poland with others, I was going to say to you that I think the United Kingdom should support Spain and Poland. What they have, they hold, and it was agreed at Nice and the Germans. . .

  Mr Straw: Have you talked to the Gibraltarians?

  Q27 Andrew Mackinlay: I suspect that, in the great sweep of things, this is actually much more germane to our friends in Spain than some of the other things which were in a cul-de-sac. I do not want to go into that because it is probably painful, but not for me. I think you should support them, but I did note what you said, and I do understand this. I do not want to be drawn on this because of our negotiating position. Then you went on to deal with "rendez-vous" clauses. That is my business. By "rendez-vous" clauses, in the way you have described it, and you will correct me if I am wrong, you are saying, "We may have rendez-vous clauses, Mr Chairman; that is, we will agree the Treaty and then we will agree that we will discuss some of these difficult issues down the road". It is yet to be decided, you said, whether or not, when you come to the "rendez-vous" clauses' discussions, if there is no agreement, we revert to Nice or whether or not it is QMV. In my view, that is absolutely critical. Basically the Treaty has to be agreed in total by everybody, otherwise there is no treaty, surely? I think you have to flesh out to us this rendez-vous clause this morning, with respect. It is like giving a blank cheque, perhaps not even to you but to your successors.

  Mr Straw: Allow me to reassure you, Mr Mackinlay on that. Any decision that would be made in Brussels this weekend, or whenever these negotiations are concluded, would be by unanimity. I cannot give you the text of the "rendez-vous" clause because I have certainly not seen the text of a "rendez-vous" clause. It was simply an idea.

  Q28 Andrew Mackinlay: No, but this is my opportunity to probe.

  Mr Straw: But in my effort, as ever, to be helpful to the Committee, I have been explaining how it could work. You could simply say, "Postpone the decision until whenever", before or after the time when these new proposals are going to come into force. Then there is a question: what is the default option? The Council could decide that there will be no voting system after a certain date, and so there would have to be a decision about what was going to happen, but that would be very unsatisfactory. You could also decide, and this could be the sense within the negotiating room, that after a period of years' experience of Nice, there will be a consensus on one side or the other, either for keeping with Nice or for changing it. Then there would be a question of whether we were willing to see that decision made by QMV and it would be for QMV to change, or QMV with the status-quo, and what kind of qualified majority would be needed for it. It seems to me that provided we agree now that procedure by unanimity, we have preserved our national sovereignty.

  Q29 Andrew Mackinlay: I am not sure about that but time is limited. Mr Prodi suggested that some countries which cannot sign up to the totality of the Treaty may have to leave the Union. Presumably you can deal with this fairly quickly. That is nonsense, is it not?

  Mr Straw: If I may put it another way, it is not the case.

  Q30 Andrew Mackinlay: Horlicks is the "Straw" word, is it not?

  Mr Straw: It is not the case. We have pointed out in here and I have said it a million times that that we want the changes which are seeking by this document and which we sought in the White Paper, but plainly life will go on if we do not get a new Treaty. That is just as true.

  Q31 Andrew Mackinlay: I would look under stones and icebergs. It seems to me that if we were not having this constitutional discussion, there would be a major agenda at what is a regular meeting this weekend. What concerns me is that you have other business which in other times would be preoccupying journalists and politicians as major issues. Is there a danger that either you would have to have another meeting fairly swiftly, an extraordinary meeting, to deal with other business or, if not, are you going, as a gaggle of ministers, to expedite and agree too rapidly things which otherwise would preoccupy you for a weekend? It is a good point.

  Mr Straw: There is a two or three hour meeting of the European Council on normal business tomorrow. Mr Darroch is reminding me of the issues such as the Growth Initiative, Enlargement, a number of JHA matters, and there will also be discussions of the Middle East. We had a detailed discussion with foreign ministers on Monday on Iran and Iraq and that complements what is going to be discussed today. Mr Mackinlay, if you are saying, "should there not come a moment when we cease to discuss the draft Constitutional Treaty and deal with day-to-day business?" the answer to that is "yes". That is why, other things being equal, I would like to see a conclusion to this, provided it meets our concerns. What is important, as I said at the beginning of this presentation, is that we ensure that Parliament is more significantly involved in the business of the EU as well as its institutional machinery and that there is a high level of scrutiny here about EU business and in the Council. I agree with that.

  Q32 Andrew Mackinlay: I am not trying to be flippant, but you are subject to human frailties like the rest of us and the constraints of time. I am saying that of course you have to deal with the Treaty and the constitution but there are other things which would normally occupy a whole weekend. You very helpfully gave us a notice: Intergovernmental Conference, economic growth, freedom of security and justice, enlargement, EU security strategy, weapons of mass destruction, ESDP, relations with the Arab world, e-commerce, Strategy on Ukraine—which I think is extremely important because if you look at the map of the Foreign Office as a whole for Europe, it is as if Belarus and Ukraine do not exist—Iraq, Iran, MEPP[17], and then "other issues". It just so happens that I have one other issue which I would like to ask you. Unashamedly it has a constituency interest. Our mercantile fleet carry the "red duster". Can you deal with this straight away, that we are not going to have the "red duster" taken from our fleets? You might think, in the great sweep of things, that this is unimportant, but to the people out there it is extremely important, and particularly in our maritime constituencies, one of which I proudly represent. I do not mind a European flag as well but the "red duster" is a "red line" issue for people out there whom you and I want to persuade about the merits of the European Union. What do you say?

  Q33 Andrew Mackinlay: On the question of the referendum, unlike yourself, I voted "for" in the 1970 referendum, but it does seem to me from your point about protecting Parliament—those were your words and they are very valid—therefore that the logic of your argument is that, to the extent that you are able to influence these things through the usual channels, there should be a free vote on whether or not we should have a referendum.

  Mr Straw: I think there should be wide-ranging discussion on this but this is a governmental issue. As I have already said on the Floor of the House, this will be, as far as the Government is concerned, a matter for the Government to make a recommendation on to our colleagues and for that to be accepted or not in the usual way. This is Government business and we are answerable in the House and of course we are answerable in the country for it. I have never heard of a free vote being held on an issue of a treaty negotiation.

  Q34 Andrew Mackinlay: That was not my question, with respect, was it?

  Mr Straw: It was.

  Q35 Andrew Mackinlay: No. My question was about whether or not there should be a free vote on a narrow issue of whether or not there should be a referendum.

  Mr Straw: I am sorry. In that case, I genuinely misunderstood you. I do not accept that neither for the same reason. The position of the Government is clear.

  Q36 Ms Stuart: I will not tempt the Foreign Secretary to go further down the referenda road, because I fear that he might mention d'Hondt at some stage. I feel this coming on. I think probably, if we were to take a view on this Committee, the majority of people might think that either we should have a referendum or a form of free vote. For the record, I was quite interested that the former European Ombudsman, Mr Soderman, just on the basis of Article 6, felt that this changed the nature of the Union and therefore would narrow the referenda. Let us leave it at that. Can I just make some observations on the issue of Parliament? I have not seen what replaces clause 24-4, the redrafting, but if I were to take what the Foreign Secretary has said, I think that would be a significant improvement. I do think there has to be a mechanism by which any change to this Constitution can be lighter than a full ratification process, which will necessarily involve referenda in some countries but it seems to me to be quite safeguarded. Before I know whether it would protect Parliament, I would look very carefully at what replaces 24-4, at what Article 17 says, and also to ensure that in terms of future Treaty amendment, we are not going down the road where the European Court of Justice would have the power to determine what is significant and constitutional and what is not. It would have to be the three seen in the round. May I also put on the record that I think any proposals which are agreed but implemented in a very long time-frame—and this comes to Mr Mackinlay's part of "rendez-vous" clauses—are actually one aspect, a most disreputable aspect, of the European Union. That makes people disengage so that they cannot hold decision-makers to account and if one lot of people in 2003 decide something, which will not happen until, say, 2009/2010, then when it is implemented those who disapprove can only say, "We cannot hold them to account because they have all gone". Again, if that is seen as a kind of way out, that may cause us problems. I now have a very specific question to the Foreign Minister. As it stands, are you satisfied that actually we can make a sufficient distinction between what relates to external relations, which is the Commission part of the role, and what applies to foreign policy? Will not ultimately, whatever the words in there say, that person, to use the phrase, be led by the Commission and a lot of it will be seen as external and therefore it is foreign policy via the Commission through the back door?

  Mr Straw: Let me answer those questions in turn. One of your points, Ms Stuart, was about anxiety over the "rendez-vous" clause. I understand the point you are making but at all times and for all institutions it is sometimes the case that a decision is made to phase a change in or to bring it into force some distance ahead. The Conventions, as you know, decided, for their own reasons, to recommend to Heads of State and governments that the Nice system should stay for the next five years in any event. There is then the question: what do we do? We could just keep Nice as the status quo, and that would be perfectly satisfactory from the point of view of the United Kingdom. Equally, from our point of view, we could agree now to change in 2009 to the 50:60 formula, which was proposed by the Convention. That is fine. These are not "red lines" for us because our system is perfectly satisfactory from our point of view. But we have, however, to see if there is a way of accommodating the concerns of Poland and Spain on the one hand, which we understand, and the concern of Germany on the other, which we also understand. If there is a "rendez-vous" formula which achieves that, then I think that that would be a satisfactory outcome if, as a result of that, we are then able to get overall agreement to a draft Treaty which meets our concerns. You ask about the "passerelle" clause and the so-called lighter ratification provisions. Mr Chairman, these are to be found in this latest Presidency' note, which is in the Library of the House because it was tabled yesterday, and I will make sure that you get it. It was made available in the English translation yesterday morning. On the passerelle, the provision is now satisfactory. This is Annex 35. This provides that where Part 3 of the draft constitutional treaty says that the Council should act by unanimity in a given area the European Council may adopt a European decision authorising the Council to act by qualified majority in that area or in that case and that decision under another article would in any event be by unanimity. Then under paragraph three of this article it says that any initiative of this kind shall be notified to the national parliaments of Member States. If any national parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification the European decision referred to in paragraph one or two shall not be adopted, so that is a complete block for our Parliament and for any other parliaments.

  Q37 Chairman: The block of national parliaments is new?

  Mr Straw: Yes. What was there before was that a specified number of national parliaments had to object, maybe a third, which was obviously unacceptable, and so we have specifically achieved what we wanted there. The other area was in respect of amendment to Part 3 of the constitutional treaty. The provisions are not that different from normal treaty change except that there will not necessarily have to be an IGC in advance. In Annex 36 it says that the government of any Member State to the European Parliament or the Commission may submit to the European Council proposals for revising all or part of the provisions of Title III of Part 3 on the internal policies of the Union. I may say there that that is actually in our interests because some of these policies are ages old, they are not appropriate, they need to be amended. You do not have to have the whole panoply of an IGC to have them amended and because this is an intergovernmental treaty there is much more detail on these policies than ever there would be, say, on agricultural policy applying to any one Member State. It then says in (2) that the European Council may adopt a European decision amending all or part of their provisions of Title III of Part 3 and the Council shall act by unanimity, and then it says that such a decision shall not come into force until it has been approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, so that is again a complete block for the national parliaments. The last question that you asked, Ms Stuart, was on the European Foreign Minister. The original proposals in Articles I-24, I-25, I-26 and I-27 meant that there was a danger that foreign policy, although it is supposed to have been set by the Council, could increasingly have been influenced too much by the Commission. I have worked very hard on this and have managed to persuade other colleagues about this danger. I may say that in doing so I was resisted by members of the Commission because they saw what I saw as a danger as an opportunity. In Article I-25 the original article said that in carrying out its responsibilities the Commission shall be completely independent, and then it says that Members of the Commission "shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or other body".

  Q38 Ms Stuart: Which annex is that?

  Mr Straw: That is Annex 7, and it is also to be found in the existing I-25. My point here was that that would mean that it would be very difficult for the European Foreign Minister to moderate the degree to which he was collectively responsible to the College of Commissioners because of his responsibilities to the Foreign Ministers' Council in the European Council, so we now have as a result of the representations I have made first of all a saving here without prejudice to Article I-27.2. In respect of I-27.2 it says that the Union Minister of Foreign Affairs shall conduct the Union's Common, Foreign and Security Policy and so on, and then in I-27.4 it says that the Union Minister shall be one of the Vice Presidents of the Commission and that he or she shall ensure that the Union's action in external relations—which can mean external relations as set by the Commission—is consistent with the Common, Foreign and Security Policy, so it is not the other way round. What is clear in the articles and in terms of responsibilities of the EFM[18] is that the Union's actions in external relations have to be consistent with Common Foreign and Security Policy.

  Q39 Ms Stuart: That is very helpful. I have seen the Lords report and I have heard the Foreign Secretary repeat several times that the institutions are strengthened, the Member States. Just an observation: it is the European institution representing the Member States which is strengthened, not the individual Member States.

  Mr Straw: I know that that was a point that you made yesterday, Ms Stuart, but at least you agree with the House of Lords to that extent, which is a start. It seems to me that since these institutions, namely, the Council which represents Member States, are strengthened, at least you have agreed that. The next thing is to ensure that the representatives of the Member States are more fully accountable to their parliaments than they have been in the past. I believe that under these arrangements we really can have a far greater degree of involvement by the British Parliament in the day-to-day business of the European Union and, to go back to Mr Maples, I think that really is the way to ensure that there is greater legitimacy for the European Union and that, as a result of getting in earlier and being more critical in the best sense of the word, we will be able to persuade our colleagues in Europe that there are some things they need to do more of and there are some things they need to do less of and I promise that that will be part of my agenda once we are through these negotiations.

18   European Foreign Minister Back