EU: Draft Constitutional Treaty (Hansard, 15 June 2004)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
My Lords, the Government welcome the presidency's latest proposals to the Intergovernmental Conference—documents CIG 79/04 and 80/04—which are being deposited in the Library of your Lordships' House this afternoon. However, we will continue to press for amendments to meet our requirements, as set out in the White Paper on the IGC of 9 September last year, Cm 5934.

§ Lord Marlesford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It underlines the total impossibility of Parliament giving any sort of meaningful scrutiny to this vital constitutional document if papers are deposited this afternoon when the target is to get a decision on Friday.
I do not believe that the Government should be quite so complacent about Parliament. The British people do not seem to support the rather sanguine attitude that the Government will do whatever is best. Will the Government therefore table an amendment along the lines of a draft that I have given to the Minister to establish confidence that the European Court of Justice will champion a strict interpretation of the European treaties and not collaborate in further "Euro-creep"?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is a little harsh on the question of depositing the papers. This is a constantly moving position, and these are updates from the most recent negotiation. The noble Lord will know that negotiations are currently under way through officials in Brussels but will continue later this week with Ministers.
The noble Lord has given me an amendment, as he suggested. It deals with the issues of competences and qualified majority voting. I remind him that the draft treaty makes it clear in paragraph 2 of Article 1.9 that, competences not conferred upon the Union in the Constitution remain with the Member States". Nothing could be clearer than what is already written in the draft treaty on that point.
629 For discussions to move to QMV from a position of unanimity, a decision can be taken only unanimously. That is the point. In addition, the Government have also negotiated a parliamentary lock. We are in the middle of negotiations. I remind your Lordships that this is a very sensitive time, when we are trying to negotiate for what we have already set out as the Government's position.

§ Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, does the Minister recall that during the convention which negotiated this document, there were monthly meetings of a Joint Committee of both Houses which reported back, and that attendance from both Houses was, sadly, rather thin? Does she accept that while the unanimity question is of great symbolic importance, the number of occasions in the EU of 15 when the United Kingdom has found itself in a minority position have been extremely few, and that the number of occasions in a Community of 25 when we are likely to find ourselves in a minority position for any reason other than the lack of skill of our United Kingdom negotiators is likely to be minimal?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, we have discussed before how often we have been outvoted on QMV—twice in 2001 and once in 2002. However, I agree with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about those who are shouting very loudly about lack of consultation but who never took the many possibilities which were open to them for that consultation. I look at the Benches opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who is, unfortunately, not in his place today, was a very good attendee. In that he was remarkable, because that was certainly not the case when it came to his counterparts in another place.

§ Lord Lawson of Blaby
My Lords, can the Minister say whether, in the draft that is about to be put in the Library this afternoon, there is still included the so-called passerelle clause, which is designed to make it easier to move from a majority requirement to qualified majority? If so, will the Government undertake to have that removed as a red line?
On taxation, which is very relevant to that point, is taxation in the new draft still a matter for unanimity unless it is necessary for the workings of the single market—weasel words, which could lead to any abrogation of unanimity? Will the Government undertake to remove them as well?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, I have not seen the papers being placed in the Library of the House this afternoon. They were arriving in the Foreign Office as I left it earlier today. I know that the passerelle clause is still in the draft. The noble Lord raises his eyebrows and looks around as though this were appalling, but I am bound to say that the discussion on this has moved on considerably. As I made very clear in answering the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, not only would moving 630 from unanimous voting to qualified majority voting require a decision to be taken unanimously—so, in effect,there would still be a veto—but there is, in addition, what has been described as a parliamentary lock. That is a mechanism by which, within six months of a proposal being agreed, a national Parliament could object to such a proposal. So this Parliament's position would be safeguarded by what has been negotiated.

§ Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind the fact that as and when something is agreed, there is a desire around the country to have more information about what it all means? At present, the indications are that the document would be comprehensive but difficult to read. Would the Government consider a simpler form of documentation, which is not Brussels propaganda, whether from the Commission or the Council, providing information which the British people are apparently anxious to have at their disposal?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, of course I agree that if a treaty is negotiated which we can present to Parliament and thereafter, if Parliament agrees, to the British people for a referendum, there will have to be clear explanations of what that treaty implies for the British people. That is one of the reasons why some of us on these Benches who had not been in favour of a referendum came to the conclusion that a referendum was the right issue because we would then be able to talk about the substance of what the treaty says and not about the processes. I welcome any opportunity to talk about the real substance of what a real treaty—when it has been finally negotiated and we have reached the final position—actually says.

§ Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, despite the Minister's clarity, does all this not confirm that this complex draft European constitutional treaty, due to be agreed on Thursday in Ireland, is still too complicated, given what was originally envisaged, and now has too many points of disagreement to fulfil its original aim? Does the Minister not agree that an alternative document—entitled, possibly, "Provisions for Enlargement"—and keeping strictly to that title, could be more acceptable?

§ Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the noble Baroness has been very kind in the way in which she has put her question. Fundamentally, her question is exactly the same as that which the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, continues to ask me: surely we should not start from this point and should we not be in an entirely different place on this matter? My answer is, no, certainly not. We are in the middle of very difficult, very complex negotiations. I would not dream of prejudicing the negotiating position of our officials and my colleague Ministers by saying, if I may say so, anything quite so daft from the Dispatch Box today.