Examination of witnesses (Questions 79
- 99)
TUESDAY 2 JUNE 1998
THE RT
HON ROBIN
COOK, MP,
MR EMYR
JONES PARRY,
CMG
and MR SIMON
GASS
Chairman
79. Foreign Secretary, may I welcome you
again to the Committee? I understand that you have to prepare
for an important meeting in Geneva relating to the nuclear crisis
in the Indian subcontinent and will have to leave at about midday
or so. Shall we get down to business immediately?
(Mr Cook) Certainly. As the Members will be aware,
I have recalled our High Commissioner from Islamabad for consultations
and I am meeting him for a consultation immediately after this
meeting.
Mr Wilshire: Can I
raise a point of order, please? The last time I think it was when
the Foreign Secretary was here I raised the question of the room
being too small and people having to stand up. On that same point
of order, could I repeat the request that, when we do have the
Foreign Secretary, we find a room large enough for everybody who
wants to come and listen to get in and sit down?
Chairman
80. I shall refer that to the clerk for
consideration. Foreign Secretary, you understand the focus of
this morning's meeting is the Cardiff Summit. Then, if time remains
for questions relating to the presidency, they will be taken as
a whole. Firstly, as we lead into this, can you indicate to the
Committee how you think we in the United Kingdom are now perceived
by our European colleagues? To coin a phrase, are we at the heart
of Europe? How do you think we are viewed as we approach the Cardiff
Summit?
(Mr Cook) With great respect. I have chaired all
meetings of the General Affairs Council at least at monthly intervals
since the presidency began. All my senior colleagues and cabinet
ministers have similarly chaired such councils. I think it is
fair to say that if you speak around Europe you will find broad
respect for the way in which we have conducted business and the
way that it has been proactive. We have also sought to find a
consensus but not just a consensus for the sake of finding agreement;
a consensus about action that can then follow it through. You
mentioned that we would deal first with the Cardiff Summit and
then the British presidency. In fact, the two are pretty well
inseparable because the Cardiff Summit comes at the end of the
presidency and reviews and puts the seal of approval on the work
of that presidency. As we approach Cardiff, I think it is important
to say that we have already had twice during the British presidency
a gathering of heads of government of the European countries,
first, for the launch of the enlargement process through the European
Conference and, secondly, for the launch of stage three of the
single currency project. This presidency has probably been unique
in that it has actually had three different summits of heads of
government. I find it difficult to recall a six month period in
the European Union's history when that has previously occurred.
I think there is broad respect that it has handled the extremely
busy and very strategic decisions that have been taken during
its presidency. If I might single out one particular area where
I think Britain can take a degree of satisfaction for its conduct
of the business, it would be enlargement. We said at the start
of the presidency that we would get enlargement off to a flying
start and we have done that.
81. We are coming on to enlargement on the
code on arms and exports and other matters.
(Mr Cook) If I could just finish, it relates to
the question about how we are viewed. We have gained a lot of
respect for Britain throughout the 4 applicant countries because
of the competence and the courteous way in which we handled the
enlargement process. Indeed, from Poland to Estonia, Britain's
role in the enlargement process has been praised. That is important
in the sense that it demonstrates that we have got that enlargement
off to the flying start which we promised; but it is also important
for the longer term interests of Britain because one day in the
next decade these countries will all be voting members of the
European Union and it is valuable to Britain that they come in
respecting Britain as an advocate and ally which assisted the
process of their integration into the European Union.
82. Do you feel that, on the other major
development over the six months, the European Monetary Union,
the fact of Britain standing outside the euro has hobbled us in
our relationship with our colleagues?
(Mr Cook) No, it has not hobbled us. We were in
the presidency; we acted as the presidency; we were respected
as the presidency and indeed, as I think I mentioned to the Committee
when we discussed the start of the presidency at a hearing six
months ago, there were some countries within the single currency
project who could actually see benefits in having a neutral chair
which was not itself part of the project. On the single currency
summit, I think the point which was overlooked is that in fact
the key decision, which was constitutionally written out in the
Treaty for the single currency, was which countries should take
part in the single currency project. That key decision passed
off without any controversy. There was a long expectation before
the single currency meeting took place in May that it would actually
be accompanied by immense tension and controversy as to who was
admitted and who was excluded. There was none of that.
83. Yet the European Parliament appear not
to share your euphoria. You probably saw the headlines last week:
"European Parliament snubs Britain, refusing to pass a motion
of congratulations". How do you construe that?
(Mr Cook) I presume that there were more votes
against it than in favour of it. I have no other observation to
make on it. The European Parliament is an independent institution.
84. What innovations will there be at Cardiff?
(Mr Cook) Cardiff will have two major discussions
and it might be helpful if I outline the content of those to the
Committee at this stage. The first of those will be on economic
reform. It has been a theme of our presidency that, if we want
to succeed in a highly competitive world, then we have to take
the micro-economic measures necessary to assist competition, to
improve our own markets and to improve our own efficiency. First
of all, we will be receiving the scoreboard which the Commission
has prepared on how countries are themselves opening up the single
market and transposing into their national rules the rules of
the European single market. I am pleased to say that the overall
tally on the scoreboard is positive. It shows that, if you take
Europe as a whole, during the period of the British presidency,
the transposition of European law into national law relative to
the single market has increased from 74 per cent last December
to 82 per cent now, so that is a significant step forward. It
does also highlight the margin that still needs to be completed.
We will be seeking to boost the recommendations in the Commission's
single market action plan to fill some of the gaps, particularly
on financial services, where it is very much in Britain's own
interests that we should move towards completion of openness and
transparency in a single market in financial services. We will
also receive the report of the Business Environment Simplification
Task Force, BEST, which pulls on the resources and the skills
of business panels around Europe, including from Britain. That
will provide pointers to how we can simplify regulation for the
future and, whilst keeping them effective, make them more business
friendly. In that same session on economic reform, we will also
receive the action plans by the Member States to tackle unemployment.
This was a commitment made at the Luxembourg special summit on
jobs and it will be the first time that the European Union has
discussed national plans to tackle unemployment across the whole
of Europe. That will give jobs a very major focus at the Cardiff
Summit. The other big discussion will be on how we take forward
the Agenda 2000 issues. Those are the policy reforms that Europe
itself must take if we are to match the efforts of the applicant
countries in preparing for enlargement. It will note the progress
on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy where there has been
encouraging progress on getting agreement on the need for reform,
on reform of the structural funds, where there is still some contention
over the proposals for reform, but broad agreement of some of
the parameters, particularly the need to reduce the bewildering
number of structural funds. There is agreement already to reduce
them from seven to three. Alongside those, there will be discussion
on budget discipline. As a big net contributor, it is one of the
objectives of our own national policy, but one that is happily
shared by most other countries in the European Union, that the
ceiling of 1.27 per cent of GDP should be preserved and that there
should be no increase in the overall ceiling of the budget for
the European Union. That discussion is important in order to maintain
momentum and provide direction for forward work on Agenda 2000.
It is too early yet to hope for conclusions, but we would hope
that Cardiff will be an important milestone on the way to wrapping
up these questions some time in the spring of 1999. That is important
also to the European Parliament because they wish to make their
final decisions on this before the European elections of next
summer.
85. It is all very well to transpose national
laws into European laws. There remains the question of enforcement.
This is raised particularly in the Italian context. What is being
done about ensuring that states actually enforce those laws?
(Mr Cook) The European Court of Justice is of
course the important adjudicating body on the enforcement of the
laws and I am happy to say that actually Britain has lost fewer
cases before the court than a number of other European countries
including, most notably, Italy, which you have mentioned. That
is why I find it odd sometimes that those who most want to see
the rules obeyed are often the same people who most criticise
the European Court of Justice. There is one step that will be
taken at Cardiff which will be helpful in making sure that the
single market remains transparent and that is that we will be
approving the Commission's proposals for speeding up the way in
which they can intervene in countries where there is actually
a blockade of other members' goods. As Members will be aware,
on previous occasions when there have been lorry blockades, it
has taken about two years to take complaints through the European
Court of Justice. We will now have a simplified procedure by which
the Commission can require a Member State to report urgently what
steps it is taking to free up access to its own market.
Sir John Stanley
86. Foreign Secretary, one of the points
that has been put to us in the context of our ongoing human rights
inquiry is that a government committed to an ethical foreign policy
should, as a matter of standard practice prior to summit meetings
of this sort, submit to the other participants at the meeting
its human rights agenda items in advance of the meeting. Does
that particular procedure commend itself to you as a matter of
general practice?
(Mr Cook) As a matter of general practice, absolutely.
Indeed, one of the initiatives that we have taken at the Foreign
Office is to form a forum of non- governmental organisations before
major international gatherings at which human rights are on the
agenda in order to explore with them the government's position.
We are particularly anxious to do that in the context of the forthcoming
Rome meeting on the International Criminal Court. As far as Cardiff
goes, Cardiff will be concerned with the economic reform and the
budget disciplines of the European Union. It is certainly the
case that there will be a number of international issues before
it. I would expect the Cardiff Summit, for instance, to make statements
on the situation in the Western Balkans which touches heavily
on the human rights issue.
87. Are there any specific human rights
items which you have indicated that you wish, in the UK context
as opposed to the presidency context, put on the agenda at this
summit meeting?
(Mr Cook) As a presidency, we would not seek to
put something on the agenda from the national perspective. As
a presidency, it is our role to guide the agenda to make sure
that we are doing the business of the European Union. There will
be a number of human rights issues arising in terms of those external
affairs and we also of course would be looking for endorsement
for our code of conduct on arms exports, which we approved last
week.
88. Could I just raise two items that may
or may not be on your agenda for the external relations of the
EU? As you know, there has been a quite productive meeting recently
of the ILO on the issue of child labour. Is it the government's
policy that an opportunity should be taken in Cardiff to try to
strengthen the EU's policy in terms of external trade in relation
to those countries where the abuse of child labour and indeed,
in some cases almost child slavery, is rampant?
(Mr Cook) It is not on the agenda. I am not sure
that I would encourage the European Union to adopt a different
standard from the ILO. You are quite right that there has been
progress made at the ILO and progress made partly because of the
very active lobbying by Britain which has been anxious to take
steps to make sure that we do act in a way against child labour
that is effective in reducing child labour, but is also non-punitive
in not damaging economies where it occurs, in that the worst way
to reduce child labour would be to deepen the poverty of those
countries. My colleague, Claire Short, has put a lot of effort
into that and I am actually pleased that she has achieved success
on that. I am not sure that I would now wish to encourage the
European Union to dash down in a different direction.
89. As you know, religious freedom is an
enshrined element in universal human rights and is endorsed by
the United Nations. In the EU context, are you going to consider
making any representations about some of the appalling operation
of blasphemy laws in certain Moslem countries? I am thinking particularly
now of the way they have been operated in Pakistan which has led
to the recent, very tragic suicide of Bishop John Joseph.
(Mr Cook) I think you were among the Members of
Parliament who might have signed a letter on this issue recently.
Quite a number of Members have raised it with me, quite rightly
so. Britain has repeatedly expressed its concern on the importance
of respect for religious beliefs and religious freedoms in Pakistan
and elsewhere. From time to time, where appropriate, over the
past year we have done so not just as Britain but as the presidency.
Mr Rowlands
90. May I pursue with you a little enlargement
and Agenda 2000? You spoke of the flying start. Is that described
well in paragraph 12 of your memorandum to the Committee or do
you wish to elaborate on it?
(Mr Cook) Paragraph 12 succinctly and densely
lists the many steps that have been taken down the enlargement
path during this presidency. We have, as it rightly states, first
of all, held the European Conference which brought together the
heads of governments of both the Member States and applicant countries.
It was a very successful meeting both in its symbolism in that
it provided a clear, visible demonstration of our common interests,
our common partnership and our common objective, but also in that
it did lead to practical outcomes on matters of common interest
to us, particularly the pre-accession pact on organised crime.
Unfortunately, one of the clearest common interests we have with
some of the applicant countries is making sure that we eradicate
cross-border crime. Subsequently, we had two meetings in Brussels,
the first of which was when we launched the accession process,
to which 11 applicant countries were invited; and the next day,
when we launched the enlargement negotiations with those who had
been identified as in the front rank for membership. I would stress
that the fact that we began negotiations with those in the front
rank does not necessarily imply that they will be the first to
enter. We stress to all applicant countries that the rate at which
they cross the finishing line will very largely turn on the speed
with which they tackle the reforms they need to make. I think
that the test of whether it is a flying start or not is precisely
the way in which the way we handled it has been welcomed by all
the applicant countries. All of them have been encouraged by it.
It was not necessarily, if I may say so, a foregone conclusion.
A fortnight before the accession process meeting, there was still
a lot of speculation that we would be unable to break the stalemate
on Cyprus. Some Member States did not wish to open negotiations
without a resolution to the Cyprus division. Had we not been able
to open negotiations with Cyprus, it is also possible that another
Member State would not have allowed us to open negotiations with
any state. I think we did show some expertise and certainly effort
and skill in getting that stalemate broken so that it could proceed
smoothly.
91. Alongside the flying start, the other
things that are in parallel with enlargement are the obstacles
that you describe in paragraph 13. There is the reform of the
CAP; there are the structural and cohesion funds and financing.
There is also institutional reform. You say in paragraph 13 that
useful ground-breaking work has been done in these fields. Have
you or has the government managed to establish a proper bridgehead
for our application for objective one status in certain parts
of Britain, including that part which I represent?
(Mr Cook) We are fully aware of the importance
to parts of the United Kingdom of making sure that we do not lose
disproportionately in the reform of the structural funds. As a
national member of the European Union, we have made vigorous representations
in order to safeguard Britain's interests. As a presidency, we
have been able to achieve, as I said earlier, a number of common
parameters. It is agreed that there should be a ceiling on the
spending of the structural funds, that there should be a ceiling
per Member State among the applicant countries with reference
to the GDP and also that there should be a reduction in the number
of structural funds from 7 to 3, which actually is a big gain
forward. Those parameters are ones that we would strongly support,
not just as a presidency, but as a Member State. It is not actually
in our interests, as a net contributor to the budget, to see spending
in the structural funds spiral upwards. However, as a Member State,
we have a very strong, vigorous, national view on the rules that
have been proposed by the Commission. Those are not yet resolved
and I would not actually expect them to be resolved until early
next year. We are in particular anxious that GDP per head should
remain a significant element in it. We are also keen to secure
a recognition of the problem of sparsity as a basis on which structural
funds can be allocated. This is particularly important, for instance,
to the Highlands and Islands.
92. Do you think you have established the
principle of the GDP issue? It is a matter of vital concern to
communities like the one I represent.
(Mr Cook) Absolutely. I do not underrate that
at all. I would not wish to say to you that we have won that battle
yet, but it is one we are fighting and fighting with every intention
of making gains. Whilst there has to be reference to unemployment
levels, a point which is being vigorously argued for instance
by Germany—and we would not resist that unemployment has
to be a factor—it ought to be unemployment over a fairly
lengthy period of time in order that one can focus on those regions
where there is a structural unemployment problem; rather than
have decisions made on where structural funds should go by reference
to what might be purely cyclical unemployment.
93. I know you have forcibly made that point
but do you think it has more than registered? As a betting man,
are we going to win?
(Mr Cook) I cannot predict what the outcome will
be but I can tell you that the point has most definitely registered
and we continue to make it.
94. We meet a lot of our sister committees.
I get the impression that many of our sister committees want to
tie enlargement to institutional reform. In one instance, institutional
reform is a precondition preceding enlargement, as it were. How
far are we progressing on institutional reform, on the question
of the size of the Commission, etc?
(Mr Cook) The truth, if I may be candid with the
Committee, is that the European Union takes some admirable decisions
when it is up against a deadline and I therefore think the prospect
of securing institutional reforms which will require compromise
on the part of the present Member States is more likely to happen
as enlargement gets nearer. There are three different areas which
are frequently raised as questions of institutional reform. Two
of those I think are absolutely central to the process of enlargement.
The first is the question of the size of the Commission because
a Commission in which everybody had a Commissioner and a number
of people had two Commissioners would give us a Commission of
such a size where frankly it would be difficult for it to work
as a cohesive cabinet. It certainly might be difficult to find
top jobs for everybody there. The second question is the reweighting
of votes within the Council. It is already the case that the larger
countries can be outvoted by the smaller countries, but if we
proceed to enlargement without any change in reweighting then
we could end up in a situation where Germany, France and Britain
voting together would not even constitute a blocking minority
of the votes within the Council. There is obviously a parallel
or a complementing between these two particular problems. It is
in the interests of the larger countries that the votes are reweighted
towards them, giving a better reflection of population balance.
It is in the interests of the smaller countries that they keep
the single Commissioner which is more important to them than their
votes on the Council. There should be the makings of a deal there.
I regret the fact that, at Amsterdam, there was then not a willingness
to face up to the deal that needs to be made and there was some
dispute among the larger countries as to how many votes they were
bidding for. We have had dialogue with close partners on this
over the past few months and I would hope that, as next year comes
round, we may be in a position to shape up to the deal that needs
to be made. The third point which is made for institutional reform,
and made very vigorously in the European Parliament, is that there
needs to be an extension of qualified majority voting. We do not
actually accept that as a logical inference of enlargement and
I am bound to say that the demands within the European Union for
an extension of qualified majority voting are now in retreat.
Some countries like Germany, who have previously been associated
with demanding more majority voting are actually going in the
opposite direction within the debates in the Council.
Mr Mackinlay
95. Picking up on the voting strength in
the Council of Ministers after enlargement, have you been able
to or can you publish various permutations or ideas for voting
strengths, which are presumably the basis of discussion? I understand
that they are the subject of discussion and you have not formulated
a view but presumably the United Kingdom government has some ideas
as to what would be the best deal?
(Mr Cook) I would have no difficulty in sharing
with the Committee what was tabled at Amsterdam and discussed
at Amsterdam. I would be a little reluctant to get into any figuring
on the discussion on a bilateral basis with other Member States
because that advertises it to everybody. The difficulty, I have
to say, at Amsterdam was not a straightforward confrontation between
large and small. The difficulty turned out to be a degree of disagreement
among the larger states. Spain, for instance, believes that when
it joined it was promised two Commissioners in exchange for accepting
a smaller weighting of its votes on the Council. If it is now
faced with a situation in which it has one Commissioner; it then
wants parity with France, Germany and Britain in votes on the
Council. This is resisted by some of the other countries who do
not see that this is justified on a population basis and, in any
case, what would you then say of Poland, which has an identical
population? There is the added problem that Germany, very understandably,
is reticent about approaching this issue because a pro rata spread
of votes would give Germany more votes than France, Italy or Britain.
That is not something we ourselves would necessarily wish to encourage.
There are great complications on how we go about this. Some of
the smaller countries have floated a double lock system, as it
is described, in which you could weight votes both by the traditional
weighting method and also by strict reference to population. Your
blocking minority could be measured by reference to either of
those. I do not find that desperately attractive because that
might enable you to stop something from happening but it does
not actually help you to get the votes for something to go through.
We will not necessarily always be on the minority side.
96. What work has been done or what assistance
is offered in terms of the new external border of the enlarged
European Union with eastern Europe? I understand that there is
no visa requirement at the present time between Ukraine Poland
and Belarus Poland and clearly it is a matter of the Union's interest
that there should be a firm regime of controlling what is quite
a large, external frontier?
(Mr Cook) Absolutely. You touched on what is probably
the most contentious aspect of enlargement, which is particularly
a matter concerning those countries who are within Schengen and
who have therefore no border controls of their own. It would be
less of an anxiety to the United Kingdom in that, as a result
of our success at Amsterdam, we have retained our own border controls
and we can therefore screen those arriving at the ports of entry.
If you take a country like Germany or France, which are in Schengen,
if these countries join Europe, join Schengen, there will be no
border control with them. Therefore, anybody who enters their
country has free access throughout the rest of continental Europe.
There is therefore considerable dialogue with Poland and Poland
is well aware of this point. If Poland wishes to enter and wishes
to join on the basis of the freedom of movement of people, then
we have to have greater confidence in their own external borders.
This is a difficult one for Poland. There is no point in treating
it lightly because after all they do have very strong economic,
social and family ties with Ukraine and the communities there
are quite accustomed to going back and forth across the border.
It is not an easy one for Poland to resolve, but they are well
aware that they have to resolve it if they are going to make progress
on integration.
97. I just wondered whether or not the burden
was entirely on Poland or if there was a moral and financial commitment
which should come from the European Union as well. I am not advancing
an argument; I am truly just asking whether or not we ought to
recognise that this is such a large, common border.
(Mr Cook) I was hoping I would not end up in negotiations
to spend more money on the applicant countries in this Committee.
Indeed, I had rather anticipated criticism for spending too much
money on the applicant countries. There is a very large budget
set aside for the accession process, and rightly so. Poland, as
one of the front ranked candidates, is getting more than those
who are not in the front rank. I think we can say fairly robustly
that we are already making very generous support to the reforms
that are necessary for these countries to enter and, when they
enter, they will of course be the prime candidates for the structural
funds. I am not sure that my partners would readily accept a pitch
for additional resources on the basis of their maintaining the
borders we would expect of a Member State. After all, I would
shrewdly suspect that Hungary, which may not be in that position,
might feel a bit disadvantaged against Poland, which is.
(Mr Jones Parry) I think there are three ways
in which countries like Poland could benefit. One, there is a
partnership agreement between the European Union and Poland designed
specifically to help Poland in those areas where it needs to actually
make progress before it can join. Secondly, there is the question
of financial assistance which comes in the form of both existing
Community instruments, TACIS and so forth, and pre-accession aid
specifically provided for in Agenda 2000. Thirdly, cooperation
on Third Pillar issues between ministers of the European Union
and the central European countries is actually well advanced.
There was a session on that this last week and indeed the pack
that has been put together focuses on issues like this.
98. When we were in the United States, it
became clear to some of us that both in Congress and in the administration
there seems to be a complete misunderstanding with regard to what
the Union is when they advance, almost glibly, that there should
be favourable consideration to Turkey's accession. I wondered
if you had had many opportunities, both on behalf of the Union
and the United Kingdom, to make it clear to our friends in the
United States that oneof the criteria is enduring robust parliamentary
institutions as a criterion for membership as well as all the
other economic considerations and questions of labour mobility.
I do not know if you have been able to address this, but I have
seen it from the administration and from Congress. People somehow
think that we are tardy and unreasonable in the Union for not
embracing Turkey almost alongside some of the principal accession
countries. I wonder if you can comment on that?
(Mr Cook) I think there are a number in the administration
who are well aware of some of the delicacies and difficulties
that are raised by Turkey. Indeed, I know that Madeleine Albright
has postponed her own visit to Turkey partly because of some concerns
in those areas. Turkey is a very serious policy question for the
European Union. It is very important that we should have a good
working relationship with what is both a major neighbour and also
a major power in a region which is of great importance to us.
For that reason, we have developed a customs union with Turkey,
I am bound to say more to the advantage of the European Union
as it has turned out than to Turkey, since the balance of trade
has moved in Europe's favour rather than Turkey's. That is why
also we have invited the Commission to develop a European strategy
for Turkey which offers a very wide range of measures by which
we can deepen our customs union and can make our markets more
open to each other and address some of the reasons why Turkey
has not been able to take as full advantage of the customs union
of the European Union as both of us might have wished. We also
have said and did say in the Luxembourg conclusions that Turkey's
candidacy for the European Union will be judged by the same objective
criteria as anybody else's. In other words, there must be no limit
based on any kind of attempt to invent cultural or other criteria.
The criteria will be the same for Turkey as for anybody else and
they will be as objective for Turkey, but you are right. Those
criteria do include the Copenhagen criteria of human rights, of
democratic governance and of civilian control and military control.
99. I am grateful. A very important part
of my question was: are you conscious of the fact that some apparently
very intelligent people on the hill and in the State Department
simply have not comprehended that which you have just spelt out
to us? It does seem to me a dangerous mantra being uttered by
Congressmen and some people in the administration, effectively
saying we ought to be moving faster on this. It is more like an
issue of saying, "You ought to go back to your friends across
the pond and say we have to spell this out to you." This
is not a loose, common market now. It is a unique political institution
where the things you have just mentioned over the past two minutes
are fundamental criteria, so back off.
(Mr Cook) One of the stimulating features of working
closely with the United States is that you now do need to have
two foreign policy approaches to the administration and to Congress.
They famously do not always see eye to eye. At the senior levels
of the State Department, it is fully understood that membership
of the European Union is not a light matter and that must embrace
all these other criteria that I have outlined. I think that we
also have to be clear that, whilst membership of the European
Union is available to Turkey as and when it meets the objective
criteria, it cannot become part of some sort of wider bargaining
point in terms of tensions elsewhere.
|
