§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the European Union's intergovernmental conference, which will begin in Rome on 4 October. Alongside this statement, I have today published a White Paper, "A New Constitutional Treaty for the European Union," in which the Government set out in more detail their approach to the IGC. The White Paper was laid before Parliament at 9.30 this morning, and copies have been made available so that hon. Members could question me on its content. In August, I published a Command Paper, 5897, which gives the full text of the draft treaty.
The origins of the IGC lie in the unfinished business of the treaty of Nice. Nice settled the simple mechanics of enlargement. but did not focus on how a Union of 25 states could then function effectively. So at the Laeken summit two years ago, EU Heads of State and Government agreed to establish a Convention on the Future of Europe with a view to both improved institutions and a single constitutional treaty.
Indeed, ever since the 1957 treaty of Rome, Europe's decision-making processes and institutions have not kept pace with the expansion of the EU's borders: for Rome's framework was designed for the six founding countries and it has been struggling ever since to cope with the demands of nine, 12 and now 15 member states. Without reform, we would be likely to see bureaucratic gridlock at 25.
It is hard to overstate the significance of the enlargement of the EU that will come to fruition next year, which will be three times greater than any previous enlargement. EU membership will be a fitting reward for the courageous steps that eight former members of the eastern bloc have taken since the fall of the Berlin wall to embrace the values of liberal democracy. In addition, the EU will be joined by two nations—Cyprus and Malta—which have long, historical links to the UK and are members of the Commonwealth.
Enlargement has been supported by successive British Governments, partly out of a sense of obligation to help correct the injustices of the cold war, but also on a pragmatic assessment of our national interest. Eight years ago, one of my distinguished predecessors, Lord Hurd of Westwell, said:
enlargement is not a luxury. It is a necessity if we are to build a safe and successful Europe for the 21st century.It is also a necessity if we are to build a safe and successful Britain. With the necessary reforms of the European Union's institutions, enlargement will mean greater trade and investment opportunities for British companies and more jobs for British workers. It will give us more partners in the fight against the problems that cross borders, such as drug trafficking, environmental pollution, international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.The EU's greatest achievement has been to help to secure an absence of war among its member states. Enlargement will extend that achievement and cement the values intrinsic to peace across the continent.
172 Our commitment to a successful enlargement lay behind the Government's positive approach to the Convention on the Future of Europe. From the outset of the Convention, we were clear about the purpose of the new constitutional treaty. We did not want to scrap the Union's existing constitutional foundation, but that is however contained in a plethora of documents, from the treaty of Rome to the treaty of Nice. What we wanted instead was a text that brought those treaties together in a single, more coherent whole. We also wanted a treaty that streamlined decision making to ensure that the Union was able to act effectively with 25 members, and we wanted reforms that would enable the Union to deal with the problems of today, rather than those of 50 years ago, and to ensure that the Union delivers for Europe's peoples.
The text that the Convention finally agreed in July largely meets those criteria and Britain's interests, as has been widely acknowledged elsewhere in Europe. The Convention, skilfully chaired by President Giscard d'Estaing, has produced a text that is clearer and more comprehensible, but does not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the member states and the Union. Let me express my gratitude to all Convention members, including our own governmental team, led by the Leader of the House, the parliamentary representatives from both Houses and staff of the House and the other place who did so much to support our parliamentary representatives.
What I have sought to do in the White Paper is to set enlargement and the new constitutional treaty in its proper context. So in section I of the White Paper, we set out the benefits of EU membership to Britain. Section II deals with changes that have taken place in Europe. Section III explains the process of both the Convention and the IGC, and section IV sets out the Government's assessment of the Convention's outcome.
Let me summarise our major conclusions. We welcome the fact that the draft brings a sense of order to the EU's hitherto byzantine constitutional structure. It consolidates the Union's existing treaties in a single, logically ordered text, which replaces the Maastricht treaty's elaborate three pillars with a single treaty structure. It streamlines the number of EU legal instruments. As someone who has studied the draft with care, I do not pretend that it is an easy read, but it is a lot better than the texts that have gone before.
The draft treaty provides for more accountable EU institutions, rooted in the legitimacy of its constituent parts—the nation states. For the first time, we have a clear definition of where the Union can and cannot act. The text makes it crystal clear, in article IX, that the EU's powers derive from the member states and that any power not explicitly conferred on the Union by the member states remains with the national Governments. That article then goes on to establish new procedures for giving national Parliaments an effective role in policing the Commission's legislative proposals.
Under the draft, contained in article III–160 and a protocol, all such proposals from the Commission have to be scrutinised by national Parliaments for proportionality and subsidiarity, and where the national Parliament objects, the Commission has to take back the proposal for review. That significantly strengthens the powers of national Parliaments. The House will wish 173 to know that the House of Lords European Union Committee, having examined the proposals in draft, concluded that
it is clear that the balance of power in the European Union is going to shift from the Commission in favour of the Member States if theConvention'sproposals … are adopted".We believe that in its present form the text will deliver a more efficient European Union, which is essential to the success of an enlarged Union. It includes a key British proposal: the creation of a full-time chair of the European Council. This will too, in practice, shift authority from the Commission to national Governments. The post would bring greater continuity to the Union's actions and ensure that the agenda decided upon by member states in the European Council was delivered.The White Paper spells out our position on the charter of fundamental rights. The Convention text makes it clear in article 11–51 that the charter
does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined in the other Parts of the Constitution.It therefore does not give any new powers to the EU. Member states are affected only when implementing Union law. As for the future of the Convention, the Government will make a final decision on the incorporation of the charter into the draft constitutional treaty only in the light of the overall picture at the IGC.Like most other member states, we have reservations about some aspects of the Convention's draft. There are elements in the text that the United Kingdom does not support. There are some areas where the Convention was unable to finalise its proposals, and others that require further technical and legal work.
In the IGC, we will not support proposals to extend the principle of qualified majority voting to certain key policy areas. We will insist that unanimity remains for treaty change and in other areas of vital national interest such as tax, social security, defence, key areas of criminal procedural law and the system of own resources. Unanimity must remain the general rule for common foreign and security policy, as proposed in the final Convention text. We will not sign up to any treaty that does not, in our view, advance Britain's national interest.
Other member states have their own concerns about the Convention's text. At the European summit in June, EU Heads of State and Governments said that the Convention's draft was a good basis for starting in the IGC, but that it would obviously be for the IGC to make the final decisions. At a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers last weekend, it was clear that many of my counterparts wanted to raise their reservations once the IGC negotiation was under way.
Let me deal with the question of a referendum. In practice, in the United Kingdom, we have held referendums when creating or joining a new institution, but not on reforming an existing institution of which we are already a member. So, it was right for there to be a referendum on whether to stay in or leave the EU, and that will be right on whether to replace the pound sterling with the euro. Equally, the previous 174 Government were right to resist referendums on the major constitutional treaty changes in the Single European Act 1986 and the 1992 Maastricht treaty. Moreover, the proposals in the current draft treaty do not change the fundamental relationship between the EU and its member states, and on any analysis they involve less change than the Maastricht treaty and the Single European Act. The Government have therefore concluded that the right place to decide on any outcome of the IGC is here in this House and this Parliament.
It is for that reason that we have sought to involve Parliament in the drafting and scrutiny of the process from the outset. Our delegation to the Convention gave regular progress reports to the specially constituted Standing Committee on the Convention. These have been invaluable and it goes without saying that we would welcome further proposals from both Houses and their Committees on the draft text and our negotiating position. Ministers have been held to account by the European Scrutiny Committee here and the European Union Committee in the other place. The European Scrutiny Committee has already produced three reports, and the House of Lords Committee has produced 14.
As I have already mentioned, I published the draft treaty articles in a Command Paper. Following consultations with, and proposals from, the European Scrutiny Committee, the House will wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tabled a Standing Order today, which appears on the Order Paper, to establish a Standing Committee of this House on the IGC. This will be closely modelled on the Standing Committee on the Convention, except that it will hear statements and take questions from Ministers rather than House parliamentary representatives, as the Standing Committee did when the Convention was operating.
Following a very helpful proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), we are supplementing the parliamentary processes on the IGC with an online public debate. My Department has opened an internet discussion forum—[Interruption.] Well, at Question Time there was concern that we should make such issues more accessible and members of the public will be given an opportunity to express their views on the draft treaty.
It would be rash to predict the ultimate outcome of the IGC. There will inevitably be many twists and turns in a negotiation between 25 countries. Neither am making any assumptions about the IGC's duration. What matters is that we secure the right text for the United Kingdom and for the EU as a whole. Securing that outcome flows not from seeking isolation within the European Union but from active and positive engagement. There is no need to approach this IGC with the defeatism of the kind that we sometimes hear. We approach it instead with a confident sense that Britain's rightful role is to play an active part in shaping the future of Europe in the interests of the British people. That has been the hallmark of the Government's policy on the European Union since 1997. By working with our European partners, we are ensuring that our vision of Europe—a vision of nation states, proud of their heritage and distinctiveness, working together for the greater peace and prosperity of the continent—guides Europe's future.
175 Britain's membership of the European Union is vital for our continued prosperity. To turn our backs on the Union at this historic time of an enlarged Europe would not only betray our national interest but mark a profound lack of confidence in Britain and everything we stand for. I commend the White Paper to the House.
§ Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes)I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and start on a note of consensus by endorsing his welcome of enlargement. I have to say, however, that if this morning's process is part of his promised consultation, two hours to digest more than 50 pages of closely argued text is a travesty.
The White Paper is pretty typical of this Government: another dossier with another prime ministerial foreword containing inaccurate statements. In particular, the Prime Minister writes—it was echoed by the Foreign Secretary in his statement—that the proposed treaty reforms
do not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between the Member States and the Union".Who do they think they are kidding? That phrase will return to haunt them. No one in Europe believes the tidying-up streamlining argument that we just heard. They see the treaty as a step change along the route to full political union. This dossier is another chapter in the Government's campaign to use smoke and mirrors to hide their true intentions towards Europe.The White Paper was originally billed as the bold negotiating stance that the Government would adopt at the IGC. Instead we find that it is a timid attempt to soften us up for eventual acceptance of the draft text pretty well as it stands. That fits with the expectation of other European leaders that the text is unlikely to be changed. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) used to tell us about red lines that would not be crossed, the implication being that the Government would veto the treaty if they were crossed. The words "red lines" are nowhere to be found in the dossier. Instead we learn that the Government will "insist" on certain areas that the Foreign Secretary set out in his statement.
What does that insistence mean? If the Government's insistence in all or part fails, will they veto the treaty? We have a right to understand what the change of language means. If they will not veto the treaty, their insistence will, as I suspect, prove pretty meaningless. Anyway, most of the areas of so-called insistence are on issues that are already pretty well conceded, although I am sure that in due course they will be publicly spun by the Government as significant victories.
The Foreign Secretary has previously talked about constructively improving the treaty, and he has also told us again today that he believes in a Europe of nation states. The current draft treaty proposes something very different, namely a distinct political entity with all the key elements of a state, and no amount of prime ministerial bluster can disguise that fact. If the Foreign Secretary means what he says, there should be many more areas of insistence to achieve that goal of a Europe of nation states.
The Foreign Secretary should insist on opposing the legally binding and enforceable charter of fundamental rights, as the Government promised to do last year, 176 instead of suggesting, as the White Paper does, that it will be left until the end of the IGC to decide what the Government's position will be. We all know what that means. He should insist on removing the explicit primacy of EU law enshrined in a constitution that fundamentally overrides our sovereignty. He should insist on deleting the proposed five-year presidency, which strikes at the heart of the whole concept of intergovernmentalism and marginalises smaller countries.
The Foreign Secretary should insist on striking out the proposal for a European diplomatic service, which is by definition the tool of a state. He should insist on preventing creeping integration by way of the so-called escalator clauses. He should insist on the principle that subsidiarity and proportionality should be enforceable by national Parliaments. Above all, he should insist that a written constitution is not only, as the Prime Minister told us two years ago, unnecessary, but totally inimical to the interests of the United Kingdom and should be scrapped. Such insistences would be proof of the Government's sincerity when they claim to be against the establishment of a European state. but none of them has been made.
What has happened to those other changes demanded in former amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Neath? What has happened to the amendment to article III–162 on asylum, which he described in the amendment as fundamentally important? What has happened to the description of the proposal to create a EU Foreign Minister as unacceptable? If the Government have already backed down on those, as I believe they have, it does not augur well for any of their other areas of insistence.
This IGC is an unparalleled chance for the Government to act genuinely on behalf of the British people by fighting integration and resisting the onset of a European state. It is a vital opportunity to put forward a positive alternative vision of a new Europe, a genuine partnership of sovereign nations, as Conservative Members have been doing in recent months. [Interruption.] The White Paper tragically fails to do that, and for all Labour Members' laughter, its clear intention is to soften up the British people for the adoption of the constitution and the treaty as they stand, in a cynical exercise that shows yet again why the Government can no longer be trusted.
This is not so much a White Paper as a white flag, and the Government's docile surrender to the concept of a politically united Europe is a betrayal of trust. They can respond to that charge by letting the people decide who is telling the truth and who is speaking for Britain. A significant number of other European countries will be honest enough to trust their people on this issue in referendums. Why are our Government so frightened of trusting the people?
Whatever the spin, the changes proposed in the draft treaty are fundamental and constitutional. No Government have the right to agree them without the consent of the people. If they want to regain some of the trust that they have recently lost, they should start by trusting the people in a referendum.
§ Mr. StrawI was hoping that we might have some forensic comments from the right hon. Gentleman. He 177 complains that he has had two hours to read the document, but I have to say that that is far longer than I used to get when I was in opposition. He has also had two months to read the full Convention text, and it is evident that he has not done so. He sought to create a fantasy of a European superstate, a piece of confection, and then to knock it down.
The right hon. Gentleman ought to be reading the text in the Command Paper, which is very clear, and, as I said, I published that not two hours but two months ago. Article I–9 in that document is very clear, and in terms of defending the interests of nation states, it is a far better text than that which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues secured in Maastricht. The article makes it clear that the member states confer competences on the Union, not the other way round. Any competences not conferred on the Union remain with the member states.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the process is creating a European Union. I have to point out to him that that was created by the Maastricht treaty. That was part of the argument. He says that, outrageously, this process proposes to make European law superior to the law of the United Kingdom Parliaments and those of the other 24 member states. He is right to say that, but he forgot to say that that has been the central part of our law relating to the EU for 31 years.
§ Mr. AncramYou are missing the point.
§ Mr. StrawI do not think that I have missed the point at all. Thirty years ago, the argument about whether we should join the European Union turned critically on whether the House and the country were willing to accept that where the EU agreed legal changes, they had primacy over the law of this Parliament. What the House decided then, and what the country decided by referendum in 1975, was that European law would indeed have primacy over UK law in order that we were able to share the benefits of EU membership. That was the bargain that was struck, and nothing in this treaty changes the nature of that bargain.
The right hon. Gentleman then went on about subsidiarity and enforceability. His colleagues in the House of Lords looked at the draft proposal on subsidiarity, and they, not me, complimented that proposal, which is now in the text of the Union, saying that it would shift the balance of power
from the Commission in favour of the Member States if the proposals … are adopted".Obviously the right hon. Gentleman has not read that report or looked at the names of the members of that Committee, but I can tell him that it has five Conservative members, including a distinguished former Chief Whip of this House, Michael Jopling, and someone who is not known for his fantastic enthusiasm for all aspects of the EU, Norman Lamont. At least he had the good grace to recognise that, as the Committee said, this does represent a shift in the balance of power from the Commission to nation states.I appreciate the difficulties faced by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Here is a man who, in developing his political career, was strongly in favour of the EU. Many of us in the House will remember the dark days of the Conservative party, when, in 1992 and 178 1993, it was writing an extremely long suicide note. The right hon. Gentleman, along with 12 other members of the current shadow Cabinet, argued passionately against a referendum on Maastricht. He also argued in favour of what was in the Maastricht treaty. In those days, he was even willing—as I am not, and nor are my Government or my party—to contemplate being a member of a European superstate.
I ask the House to listen carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's words because they are confusing at first blush. He said:
I said at the beginning that I did not want to be part of a European superstate. Equally, I do not want to find myself in a country that is outside a European superstate".—[Official Report, 4 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 343.]That was perhaps a less eloquent part of his speech, but overall he was endorsing Maastricht.In this White Paper we have set out in detail not only what is proposed in the Convention but what was decided at Maastricht, and I invite the right hon. Gentleman to refresh his memory of Maastricht. It changed the European Community to the European Union and extended the EU's competence to a number of new policy areas, including economic and monetary policy, social policy, education, vocational training and youth, culture, public health, consumer protection, trans-European networks, industry and development. It introduced the co-decision for the European Parliament, a fundamental change in the running of the EU, and extended or introduced qualified majority voting to 30 policy areas. I repeat that on any analysis the Maastricht treaty involved a greater and more significant change to the way in which the Union operates than does that which is before us.
Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the set of proposals was inimical to the interests of the European Union and should be scrapped. I look forward to hearing from him what his position and that of his party is in respect of the EU. Are they manoeuvring themselves, as many members of the Opposition Front-Bench team are, including the Leader of the Opposition, to a position where they are proposing to leave the EU and to disengage altogether?
I do not pretend that the EU is perfect—far from it. However, after 37 years of experience, I believe that we are better in it than out of it. We are better making the best of it for Britain in it than out of it. I know that the body that is totally inimical to the interests of Britain is the Conservative party.
§ Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale)I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I welcome also what I hope was an open-ended commitment by the Government to parliamentary scrutiny, be it in the Chamber, in Select Committees or in the Standing Committee on the Inter-Governmental Conference, which he reported to the House today. The European Scrutiny Committee is looking forward to my right hon. Friend giving evidence to us tomorrow on his White Paper, and I look forward to welcoming him.
I offer one word of caution, and it refers to the Standing Committee on the treaty. Will my right hon. Friend have a word with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about consulting colleagues who 179 were members of the Standing Committee to learn from the lessons that clearly helped to improve the scrutiny of the Convention? I am sure that those lessons will serve the House well if we consult before the Standing Committee is set up.
§ Mr. StrawI am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. I have always believed in open-ended scrutiny of Ministers. I look forward to submitting myself to that process, including before my hon. Friend's Committee tomorrow.
Scrutiny will need to take place at three sets of levels. One of those levels should be Select Committees, including the one that my hon. Friend chairs. In some specific areas, I do not doubt that subject departmental Select Committees will wish to be involved in examining carefully how various drafts of the text are likely to operate. I anticipate that that will be the case especially in relation to foreign policy and defence. Secondly, there should be scrutiny on the Floor of the House, and thirdly in Standing Committee As I was not a parliamentary representative on the Convention, I obviously did not attend Standing Committee. However, I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. I accept the need to consult him and his colleagues and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee and yourself, to ensure that the process operates effectively.
§ Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)The Foreign Secretary was right to shake us out of our domestic introspection by reminding us of the significance of enlargement and the consequences for those countries that have thrown off the yoke of communism and embraced liberal democracy. It is right that we should remember that when we consider the detail as far as it affects ourselves.
I had no difficulty reading the 60 pages in the time allotted. If I have a criticism of the White Paper, it is that it does not contain much that I have not heard before. Of the 60 pages, only 12 were devoted to the Government's opinion of the Convention text. May we take it that elsewhere will we see a detailed critique by the Government of the terms of the text?
I agree about the areas that are sometimes described as red lines—for example, tax, social security, defence and own resources. I agree that they should remain the exclusive responsibility of the House. They are a necessary part of the sovereignty of the Parliament to which we are elected.
As for the charter of fundamental rights, paragraph 103 reads:
The Government will make a final decision on incorporation of the Charter into the draft Constitutional Treaty only in the light of the overall picture at the IGC.That may not be byzantine, but it is certainly delphic. Do the Government have as a reserve position the vetoing of the whole process if they are not satisfied with the outcome of their negotiations in relation to the charter of fundamental rights?Why is it that the Government set themselves so implacably against the idea of a referendum on a treaty that in my judgment raises constitutional implications, 180 not least in relation to the charter of fundamental rights? Surely a Government confident of their own position would be comfortable in seeking the endorsement of the people of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. StrawOn that last point, it is not a question of being comfortable. I am very comfortable with the position that I and the Government have adopted. It is about what is appropriate. I have already said that in this country we have had, and will have in future, referendums when we are joining or, in one case, voting to leave an institution. In a European Union context, it was right to have a referendum in 1975. We should have had one in 1972 or 1973 as we were joining but, as I said, we had one in 1975. It is obviously right that when faced with a new economic institutional proposal—that of whether to join the euro or not—there should be a referendum on the issue.
The House needs to have some confidence in its own judgments. We have dealt with European Union constitutional treaties—my party has taken a consistent view on them, and I think that even the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party has in the past—by the parliamentary process. I believe that that is the appropriate way forward.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the White Paper does not contain much that we have not heard before. I take it as a compliment that we have at least been consistent in the negotiating approach that we have adopted.
§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)Consistently wrong.
§ Mr. StrawConsistently right. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker.
As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) will recall, there were four occasions before the summer break when we discussed these matters in great detail. Further detail will be provided about our negotiating position, not least in cross-examination by various Select Committees. I am glad that he endorses our position on the red lines.
There is nothing particularly delphic about paragraph 103. Given the nature of the charter of fundamental rights, we must ensure that the text properly protects what we want it to protect. We will not be able to make the final judgment on that until we have seen the rest of the text. In other words—the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about the veto—nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
§ Mr. George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent, South)There is much in the Government's approach to the IGC and the Convention that I want to support. However, there is an equal number of issues that I have serious concerns about. The weakest arguments that I find in the Government's approach are those that are deployed against having a referendum. The White Paper is clear that the Convention and the IGC will affect the lives of every man, woman and child in this country and will impact on the way in which we govern ourselves. In these circumstances, and given the fact that many other member states have decided to hold referendums, why 181 are the Government so insistent that the people of this country should not be consulted on the way in which they are governed?
§ Mr. StrawIt is a question of judgment whether the changes in the draft, if they were agreed, would fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between this Parliament, this country and the European Union, and I do not believe that they would. In the White Paper, we have not used the language that he suggested about how the changes will fundamentally affect the lives of people in the United Kingdom.
It is certainly true that an enlarged Union will fundamentally affect people's lives here, and that is why all parties in the House have been committed to it. It needs to be understood that the argument for the changes is to make enlargement work. However, if it happened that the Convention process ran into the ground and one country or another did not ratify it, then, to put it bluntly, it would not be the end of the world. We would have to get by with Nice. My objection to Nice is that it is unsatisfactory and inefficient, but it is not that there is a different level in terms of the relationship between member states and the European Union and between Nice and what is now proposed, except that under these proposals the European Council Heads of Government will in practice gain more authority with a small "a" because they will have a full-time president who will be able better to match the European Commission. In addition, we have the important proposals in respect of subsidiarity.
§ Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that, by holding a large number of referendums over the past six years, the Government have already changed the constitution of this country? Would not other countries have taken more seriously some of the positions that he has now had to abandon if the Government took more seriously the views of the people of this country and were prepared to hold a referendum? Given that the Prime Minister has instead called for parliamentary scrutiny of the treaty—a statement in itself sufficiently remarkable from the Prime Minister that it betrays the absence of other arguments—will the Foreign Secretary commit himself to that treaty being scrutinised clause by clause on the Floor of the House by all right hon. and hon. Members?
§ Mr. StrawThe question of the scrutiny of any treaty proposals will proceed in the normal way and, of course, constitutional matters will be considered in the way that applies to any European Union treaty. I am not going to anticipate the precise nature of the arrangements for that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] The House knows that, but I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is committed to proper and effective parliamentary scrutiny.
We put our approach to the intergovernmental conference to the British people at the last election. We said in our manifesto:
Labour wants the next Inter-governmental Conference in 2004"—
§ Mr. William Cash (Stone)The manifesto did not say what the constitution would contain.
§ Mr. StrawI am sorry, but with great respect, the shadow Attorney-General, unusually for him—he gets 182 things wrong, but he at least reads the text unlike his right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary—is saying that we never mentioned it. I am quoting directly from the Labour manifesto, a document branded on the hearts of all Conservatives because of the historic defeat that it produced. It said:
Labour wants the next Inter-governmental Conference in 2004 to address public concerns about the way the EU works, spelling out in a clear statement of principles what should and should not be done at European level. Labour supports a stronger role for national parliaments in European affairs.We have delivered that, and there was no suggestion—we knew that the IGC was coming—in our manifesto that we would go for a referendum, and we all know what the result was.May I tell the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that in other countries the view is that Britain did very well in respect of the negotiations? Le Monde said:
The British government is pleased with the Convention and has every right to be so. The text meets virtually all its expectations and allays most of its fears".Robert Badinter, one of the leading French constitutional experts said that, as a result of the way in which we operated, the constitution for the Europe of the 25 could now be dubbed "la britannique". It may also be helpful to know that when the text was becoming clear, one of the leading federalists, Giuliano Amato, was so sad that he said:I want to kill myself".
§ Mr. BercowIs that intellectually conclusive?
§ Mr. StrawNo, it is just suggestive of the fact that we did rather well in the Convention, and we hope to do even better in the IGC.
§ Mr. SpeakerMay I appeal to the House for brief questions and, along with that, brief answers?
§ Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)May I urge my right hon. Friend to look again at the question of a referendum? I cannot believe that, deep down, he believes that the changes that the new constitution will bring about are not worthy of a referendum. Like me, he supported a referendum on Maastricht. A referendum would give us a stronger negotiating position and would mean that, if the people of this country wanted to be committed to the European Union, they would feel that they had the right to support it.
§ Mr. StrawOn a point of fact, I did not support a referendum on Maastricht. The record shows that I was against it and voted against a referendum. On the wider issues raised by my hon. Friend, I have already explained the Government's position. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to look carefully at the text and the White Paper so that they can say where in the text, taken as a whole, there is a fundamental change in the wrong way in the nature of the relationship between member states and the European Union. I frankly think that they will find that very difficult.
§ Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells)Why are the Government spinning the fantastic distortion that they 183 have achieved most of their aims already except for a handful of issues that are still to be decided? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House that, in the European Convention, the Government tabled over 200 amendments to the draft constitution? I have the list here. Only 11 were accepted, so what has happened the other 189 issues which the Government opposed? Why has the White Paper downgraded or, in most cases, dropped entirely any reference to all those other issues to which the Government objected? Will the Government drop this absurd strategy of fastening on a handful of red line issues on which they think that they can claim victory, ignoring all the other objections that they made in the Convention and which they are now carefully forgetting?
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryThey are not in the White Paper.
§ Mr. StrawThe right hon. Gentleman is making an error in insinuating that the draft from the Convention is the final word—it is not.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryThe objections are not in the White Paper.
§ Mr. StrawI am talking about the draft produced by the Convention. The Heads of Government at Thessaloniki said that it was a good basis for starting the negotiations. I am not going to anticipate what will happen at the IGC, but a great many amendments will be submitted by many member states. As for the right hon. Gentleman's arithmetic—I shall come back to him if am proved wrong—what often happens in negotiations is that one member state submits language and another member state submits similar language. He will remember—improbably, he was Minister for Europe—that, in the end, as a result of negotiation, language is agreed that is not necessarily the same as that originally submitted, but which is acceptable. I said in my opening statement that there are other areas, which, I am sure, were covered by some of those 200 amendments, that require technical improvements. There are other issues, too, that we intend to raise in the negotiations.
§ Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston)The Foreign Secretary helpfully said that one area on which the Government will insist on unanimity is future treaty changes. In that context, can he help me with what seems to be more than just a linguistic inconsistency? The Command Paper talks about the draft constitution treaty for the European Union and a clear treaty structure. The document that the Convention handed over to the Heads of Government at Thessaloniki referred to a
draft treaty establishing a constitution for Europe".Most of the people who wrote that—I am not one of them—were quite clear that they wished to move away from the treaty structure and establish an independent constitutional structure, which would mean that there 184 would be no future treaty ratifications. If the Government are committed to treaties, what will they do to ensure that a treaty structure remains?
§ Mr. StrawMy hon. Friend makes an important point. This is, in our judgement, a draft constitutional treaty and I have just spotted the fact that that is included on the cover, as provided by the European Convention to which my hon. Friend referred. We are clear that the basis of the European Union must be a treaty basis, and that is why I have spelt out today the fact that we have to keep the veto and proper processes for any treaty changes.
§ Mr. Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills)Just before he rose to speak, the Foreign Secretary heard the Deputy Leader of the House assert the sovereignty of the House. That is only meaningful in the democratic age, as Winston Churchill said, as a shorthand for the sovereignty of the people. The Foreign Secretary prayed in aid a referendum that took place over a quarter of a century ago on a very different proposition from that facing the British people and the House today. It is not good enough, and everyone knows that it is not. Maastricht purported to establish things that were irrevocable and irreversible, and they will be included in the constitution. It is therefore imperative that the sovereign people of this country should have the right to judge whether the measures that have been taken in their name in recent years are what they want.
§ Mr. StrawI do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I was praying in aid the distinction between a referendum on whether to join or leave the European Union and the proposition for a referendum on a constitutional treaty such as this, and saying what that distinction was. In arguing against a referendum, I was praying in aid the precedent of the previous Government—I know that he did not agree with it, but most members of the then shadow Cabinet did so—in deciding against holding a referendum either on the Single European Act 1986, which made profound changes and introduced qualified majority voting, or on Maastricht. I happen to think that that was the right approach and I am surprised that, without any good basis at all, some Opposition Front Benchers have now changed their minds.
§ Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the vision set out eloquently by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) is shared by no other country, whether by an existing or accession member of the Union, and that the logic of his shopping list is therefore that of withdrawal?
In terms of parliamentary accountability, especially for common foreign and security policy and European security and defence policy, what mechanism would my right hon. Friend devise to ensure such accountability beyond Select Committees, the Floor of this House and the new Committee, at an all-European level, including both national Parliaments and the European Parliament? Finally, as the accession of 10 new countries is such a grand thing to celebrate, how does he propose that we in Britain celebrate enlargement next May?
§ Mr. StrawMy right hon. Friend referred to a vision, but I would say that the right hon. Member for Devizes 185 (Mr. Ancram) has a fantasy about Europe that is not shared by any other country. Indeed, were the Conservatives suddenly to find themselves in government, they would betray Britain's interest and undermine the basis of its prosperity with their current approach. The simple truth of the matter is that the strategy set out by the leader of the Conservative party is, step by step, to put the United Kingdom in a position in which it has to leave the European Union. Indeed, that is what he has often talked about.
My right hon. Friend made some points about common foreign and security policy—
§ Donald AndersonAt an all-Europe level.
§ Mr. StrawThat would be done in part by the European Parliament. However, let us be clear that we in the United Kingdom are against any Communitisation of the CFSP and therefore against the European Parliament, which represents voters around Europe but not nation states, having a formal role in the settling of common foreign and security policy.
§ Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset)In 1975, at the time of the last referendum, we had already been a member of the European Union for two and a half years. The question put to the British people was whether they approved of Harold Wilson's renegotiation. The consequences of their not approving would have been that we either left or sought some other arrangement. The consequences of a no vote in a referendum on this constitution would be very similar, so I do not believe that the constitutional position is any different. However, I do not want the Foreign Secretary to re-rehearse his arguments for or against a referendum. I want him to tell the House whether he believes that, if the Government are successful at the IGC, the British people will support continued membership under the new constitution. If he does, why does he not feel that that could be legitimised by the British people voting in a referendum?
§ Mr. StrawI am quite clear that the British people support membership of the European Union. Of course, they also have criticisms of the way in which it operates, as do I, but what they want is a Government who stand up for Britain's interests and get the best deal for Britain in terms of prosperity, and also help to secure the peace across Europe.
§ Mr. Bill Tynan (Hamilton, South)There are many on both sides of the House who oppose our involvement in Europe or have done so for many years, and their position has not changed. However, I welcome the White Paper, as I believe that it is an opportunity to discuss in detail the effects of what has emanated from the European Convention. In the light of the low turnout of 59 per cent. in the previous general election, what level of participation would my right hon. Friend expect in a referendum in this country on the Convention?
§ Mr. StrawI am sorry to say to my hon. Friend that I have no idea about his last point, as it is a hypothesis on a hypothesis. I am grateful for his welcome of the White Paper as an opportunity for Parliament to do its proper 186 job in scrutiny. I find it odd that Opposition Members seem to lack confidence in their ability effectively to scrutinise what the Government are doing.
§ Angus Robertson (Moray)The Foreign Secretary will be aware that there is consternation in fishing communities in Scotland about the treatment of fishing policy in the draft constitution. He will also be aware of the views of the European Scrutiny Committee, which is concerned about the prospect of exclusive EU competence in the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy. Why then did he make no mention of fisheries policy in his statement or in the whole paper? Is it because like the Heath Government, he views fishing as expendable, or as the irrelevance that the current Government treat it as?
§ Mr. StrawIt is neither. We happen to think that fishing is extremely important, and I know of its importance, particularly to Scottish communities.
§ Angus RobertsonWhy is it not included?
§ Mr. StrawThe reason why it is not included—this has been the subject of correspondence between his party and me—is that the key competencies from which restrictions on fishing arise are already exclusive.
§ Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, since 1 January 1973, the Common Market and the European Union have not been one great big happy family, as has been evidenced by recent events over Iraq as well? Does he also agree that there has been a loss of manufacturing jobs since 1 January 1973, despite the fact that the great visionaries of the Common Market said that that would not happen? What guarantees can he give us that, in this wonderful new 25-member group, loss of manufacturing jobs will be stemmed? How much more will we be paying on the common agricultural policy as a result of the inclusion of a further 10 members?
§ Mr. StrawMy hon. Friend is, as ever, correct in saying that the European Union has not been one great big happy family since 1973 or even since a more recent date. Whatever the arguments were—I remember them well—about whether we should join the European Union or stay in in 1975, the truth is that it would not be in Britain's economic interest for us to leave the European Union or damage our national interest in it. I am quite clear that unemployment would be higher. There is a separate issue about manufacturing that is not directly related to our membership of the European Union. Overall, we and British work people stand to benefit greatly by the enlargement of the European Union.
§ Malcolm Bruce (Gordon)Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that, in many ways, the protection of British interests about which hon. Members are concerned is best guaranteed by enlargement itself? Will he accept from me that it is welcome that the 10 applicant members will be full participating members of the IGC, but ensure that, having not been part of the negotiations, they will have the right to have their 187 concerns considered? Many of them say that they did not escape from the Soviet Union and acquire their new independence merely to give it up. It is absurd to think that they are signing up in referendums to accession with such enthusiasm in anything other than the belief that their independence is being enhanced.
§ Mr. StrawThe hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the position of the accession states. They are proud of their sovereignty and are not going to give it up. That also applies to the other member states. Whatever the question of their involvement in the Convention, those 10 accession countries are now participating on equal terms with European Union Foreign Ministers and will participate on equal terms in the IGC. Under the decisions made at Thessaloniki and Copenhagen, they have the same rights of veto over the final text as any other member state.
§ Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)I assume that Her Majesty's Government are not supporting a referendum because the history of referendums on Europe is that if Governments do not get the right answer they keep on having them until they do.
Since health is not one of the areas that is protected by a veto in the document, will the Foreign Secretary confirm in good faith that if the national health service is told that it must agree to a system of patient payment, Her Majesty's Government will not only oppose, but not accept, such instructions?
§ Mr. Boris Johnson (Henley)Given that the Government are obviously going to be too cowardly to hold a referendum to consult the British people on this new constitution for Britain and Europe, will the Foreign Secretary at least undertake to abide by the result of an independent referendum, conducted with the co-operation of the Electoral Reform Society and with cross-party support, in which every elector is consulted? Would he accept that result?