Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300
- 319)
TUESDAY 21 NOVEMBER 2000
RT HON
ROBIN COOK
MP, MR EMYR
JONES PARRY
CMG AND MR
KIM DARROCH
300. What the Caricom countries are saying is
obviously this has been discussed with them and they understand
that it is the long term thrust of EU policy to open up markets
but they were promised that there would be full impact studies
of the effect on commodities like bananas and sugar. It seems
for political reasons all this has been short circuited and there
is an attempt to ram it through by December. This is a DTI thing
really but I am flagging up the foreign policy implications and
the concern of the Caribbean countries.
(Mr Cook) The Commission is perfectly entitled to
set whatever ambitious agenda and timetable it wishes. That does
not necessarily require the Council to give a positive or a negative
answer in that timetable. Personally, from what I have heard,
intuitively I would be surprised if they got agreement from any
Council by December, but I can write and clarify that.
(Mr Darroch) We are aware of the Caribbean countries'
concern. They have talked to our missions and we will take their
views into account.
Chairman
301. The last major chunk is enlargement and
the dates of enlargement. You argued in the past that to set dates
might reduce the pressure on certain countries to do well in terms
of incorporation of the acquis. Now it is said that the
Swedish presidency might seek over the first six months of next
year to set dates presumably because of progress in terms of the
chapters. What is the current HMG view on setting dates?
(Mr Cook) I set this out for the first time in July
when I spoke in Budapest and made a major speech on our approach
to enlargement. In that speech, I did call for target dates and
said we believed the time was right when we should consider target
dates for the candidates. It is not a view shared by the current
presidency, the French government, and therefore we have never
thought it a realistic prospect for Nice, but I think it is quite
possible that it will be set at the Gothenberg Summit which will
come at the end of the Swedish presidency. Because of its traditional
and geographic connection with the Baltic states, Sweden is very
forward on the enlargement issue. I would hope that we can get
consensus by then for target dates for the applicant countries.
One of the reasons why we can be hopeful on that front is that
the recent report by the Commission on the enlargement is very
positive and does show that, in the majority of cases, good progress
is being made by the applicant countries. Therefore, by the middle
of next year, it should be possible for a number of them to set
a target date by when we could complete negotiations. Of course,
the completion of the negotiations is only then the start of the
ratification process, but the Committee may be aware that the
Prime Minister, in his Warsaw speech, did say that we wanted the
new first members to join us in time for the next European Parliament
elections which would be in 2004. For completion of the negotiations
and completion of ratification, that is the basis for deliverable
targets.
Mr Mackinlay
302. You have clarified something I was going
to ask you. Where the Prime Minister said that he hoped the principal
applicant countries would be in by the European elections 2004,
I had interpreted that as almost like them having the parliamentary
elections and being able to sit in the Parliament in advance of
membership. That was his target date, was it, for membership?
(Mr Cook) They could become members in advance of
polling day for the European Parliament but if, say, we get half
a dozen members joining ad hoc addition to the European Parliament
will be tricky because there will have to be a redistribution
of seats between the nations.
303. I am sorry to labour this. It is probably
not the most important thing in the world but the way I interpreted
it was that he was saying that accession might be 2005 but they
will be able to participate in the elections and take seats.
(Mr Cook) I am not sure that that would be legally
possible. For them to legally take part in the elections, they
would have to be members of the Union by then. Indeed, they would
wish to be and it would be our objective too. We would not, certainly
at this early stage, countenance setting a later date.
Chairman
304. If the ratification process were far advanced,
you would not be against not holding up countries having shadow
elections prior to formal accession?
(Mr Cook) Speaking for the United Kingdom, we would
be certainly open to such a creative solution but whether that
is legally possible I would not like to say offhand.
(Mr Jones Parry) In the case of Spain and Portugal,
both had members of the European Parliament under special arrangements
for the general election which then followed their accession.
(Mr Cook) Am I not right in saying that that did not
require a redistribution of seats? A bolt-on is one thing, but—
Mr Mackinlay
305. What is clear this afternoon is that it
is not clear exactly what the Prime Minister had in mind on this
narrow point.
(Mr Cook) I think it is quite clear what the Prime
Minister had in mind which is that they should be full members
of the European Union in time to take full part in the European
Parliament elections in 2004. I would not want to get into speculating
about that timetable not being met, because it lessens the pressure
on our partners, but we can investigate the legal position.
Chairman
306. Could you give us a note on that, please?
(Mr Cook) Of course.
Sir John Stanley
307. Foreign Secretary, you said this afternoon
that you think both entry and ratification for the six applicants
in the first wave are a realistic target for 2004. Would you agree
that almost all the attention in relation to the next wave of
enlargement, with particular reference to the six countries that
are coming in, not least Poland and Hungary, has been very much
focused on the institutional changes which are necessary to accommodate
them, but there has been grossly insufficient attention paid to
the financial, particularly CAP, reform changes which are required?
Would you agree that it is now going to be imperative that France
and Germany in particular seriously address the need to deal with
the financial implications and the CAP reform implications of
entry, particularly of Poland and Hungary, if there is going to
be any sort of prospect of achieving the 2004 date which you said
this afternoon you think is realistic?
(Mr Cook) First of all, can I make an entry in the
margin? It is true I used the phrase "half a dozen"
which is slightly elastic, but I would not want to be pinned down
to that being precisely those who started the process of accession
in the first wave because we have always been clear that this
is not a block process. In other words, those six do not necessarily
come in as a block. Equally, those who are behind them have the
opportunity of catching up. This is quite relevant since Malta,
which started last, has made the best progress in view of its
previous work and has pretty well caught up on the first six.
It is not necessarily those who are in the first wave for accession
who may be in the first wave for membership. The answer to your
substantive question is no. That was the whole point of Berlin.
Berlin set a financial perspective for seven years and set a financial
perspective in the expectation that new members would be coming
into the European Union in the course of those seven years. It
created sufficient room within the financial perspective to accommodate
new members towards the end. That financial perspective comes
in in 2007 and there will be renegotiation of that financial perspective
starting effectively in 2004. That enlargement will coincide with
the debate about the next financial perspective in the course
of which we would certainly hope to see further reform of the
Common Agricultural Policy and would ourselves expect the WTO
to be applying pressure for that objective.
308. This afternoon you are saying something
which has come as quite a surprise to me because we have taken
this very precise issue previously in the Committee in believing
that the first wave of applicants was being treated as a block
and would come in all together. You are now saying to us that
possibly the more difficult countries in financial terms—I
suppose Poland would particularly stick out—might find that
their applications are going to be deferred because of the difficulties
that France and Germany in particular have with accommodating
their agricultural economy against the existing subsidy system
for the CAP.
(Mr Cook) I do not honestly see how you can draw the
last inference from what I said, because what I said was at Berlin
all the countries of the European Union, including France and
including Germany which was in the chair of the Berlin Summit,
agreed to a financial perspective spanning for the next six years
which was carved out specifically in order to provide room for
enlargement and on the assumption that enlargement would take
place in the course of that financial perspective. That is not
a fair inference from what I said. I am surprised if it comes
as news to the Committee that we are not approaching this as a
block process. We have said that right from the start in 1998
when accession was launched under the British presidency. The
principle of differentiation is very important to the applicant
countries because they want to know that they will get in on the
merits of their case, on the work that they have done to prepare
for membership and are not necessarily kept waiting whilst others
catch up.
Sir David Madel
309. A recent Commission report referred to
the slow progress of Polish agricultural reform. Am I right in
thinking that we are not prepared to overlook that in our desire
to get Poland in and, if agricultural reform in Poland proceeds
at a slow pace, there will be inevitable delay?
(Mr Cook) There is no guarantee that any one country
will get in in the first place, and all of them will have to meet
the criteria for membership—the Copenhagen criteria, and
the adoption of the acquis in which agriculture is part. That
said, we should bear in mind that one of the difficult issues
yet to be resolved in negotiation with the applicant countries
is the question of direct payment to farmers. The Berlin financial
perspective assumes that there will be no direct payment to farmers
in the applicant countries as they became members. In some ways
that would be a helpful outcome because what we would not wish
to create is a new constituency of support for direct payment
within the European Union which would be inconsistent with our
own wish for reform. This is not something which for obvious reasons
is attractive to the applicant countries that will be the centre
of much negotiation over the next year.
Chairman
310. Nor would it be consistent with broad Community
principles of fairness and treating all Members equally?
(Mr Cook) It is indeed a point that is vigorously
put out by the applicant countries but, at the same time, it does
chime with the need to achieve reform and reduce spending.
Sir David Madel
311. Of existing members of the EU probably
the country keenest for Poland to join is Germany, for understandable
reasons. Do you get the impression that Germany is not prepared
to overlook the slow pace of the Polish agricultural reform?
(Mr Cook) No. Indeed, as I said earlier, Britain is
one of the less protectionist members, and in some ways we are
more supportive than those countries which are nearer.
Mr Mackinlay
312. If I can say to you, Foreign Secretary,
my recollection of the British Government's position is somewhere
between yours and John Stanley's—it is a nuance.
(Mr Cook) A very interesting correlation.
313. If it is just left like this, this afternoon,
I think it could negate all the very positive vibes which came
from the Prime Minister's Warsaw speech, if I might say so. Apart
from clarity here, I think I should invite you—surely the
position of the British Government is saying, of course, ultimately
there is no guarantee that countries coming to Visegrad, Estonia
and Slovenia, come in en bloc; but as a matter of policy and as
a matter of objective and target that is the intention that we
should reach that—because to bring other countries in (particularly
Hungary and the Czech Republic) and for Poland not to be admitted
would have profound other consequences either within the 40 million
people of Poland, which is bigger than all the other countries
put together, and be an enormous loss not just to them but to
the rest of the European Union. It seems to me that what you personally
have uttered in this Committee is the objective that they should
come in together. It is fair but it is not an absolute guarantee,
but if you are departing from that this afternoon then that is
a departure which should be noted?
(Mr Cook) No, it is no departure. I think it is very
important we are quite clear about this. It is not only one country
that may be listening to what we are saying here but also the
others, and they all want to be treated on their merits and not
as members of a bloc. Malta wishes the opportunity to catch up.
314. Malta is about the size of Wandsworth.
Let us put things into perspective.
(Mr Cook) I am not sure I would find it helpful to
endorse that observation. Malta is a sovereign independent state
which is entitled—
Chairman
315. Under clear democracy.
(Mr Cook)—to have its application judged on
its merits. I do not think we should diminish Malta's case. If
I can go back to where I was—Malta would wish the right
to catch up. We have always promised that there was a fast lane,
as we said, in which those who were further behind could catch
up. We would want to make sure, for instance, that the other Baltic
States if they made the progress could catch up with Estonia,
but that is down to them. Let me stress, Chairman, I have said
nothing in the course of this hearing to suggest that we do not
want Poland to be a member and we do not want Poland to be a member
in the first wave. All I have said, and this has been our policy
right from the start, is that each country will be judged on its
merits and on the progress it has made.
Mr Mackinlay: It is a different nuance.
Chairman: We have several blocs I would at least
like to touch on—enhanced co--operation first with Mr Rowlands
and Mr Maples.
Mr Rowlands
316. Foreign Secretary, when you last came before
us on these issues you and the Department's position was why do
we have to build a new provision for enhanced co--operation. The
provision had been made and had not been used at all previously.
Has there been an example of enhanced co-operation under the existing
arrangements?
(Mr Cook) No.
317. We nevertheless are faced with the quite
considerable pressure to have new provisions for enhanced co-operation
which include, among other things, no veto or emergency brake
on enhanced co-operation for the first pillar. Do we support that?
How are we going to handle that issue?
(Mr Cook) The present situation is satisfactory at
this point. It does provide that if a Member State objects to
enhanced co-operation then it should be referred to the European
Council before a decision is taken for enhanced co-operation to
proceed, and we are not uncomfortable with that as an outcome.
318. On the first pillar we would accept possibly
qualified majority voting to proceed?
(Mr Cook) No, that is separate. What it does provide
for is that if a member country objects it has to go to the full
summit meeting before it would proceed. Also that has to be read
in conjunction with the conditions for enhanced co-operation.
For instance, we are very keen and are making good progress in
securing strong language that makes clear that enhanced co-operation
cannot disrupt the Single Market. To be perfectly honest with
the Committee, I do not think that leaves much scope for enhanced
co-operation within the first pillar.
319. Secondly, the concept of a veto has been
retained for the second and third pillars, although our Government
White Paper envisaged that there could be some kind of enhanced
co-operation without a veto on the issue of security and defence.
Is that right?
(Mr Cook) No, our position is that any decision to
adopt a policy on the Common Foreign and Security Policy has to
be unanimous. However, we have always recognised that, having
adopted policy, the issue of implementation is one where a group
of countries may wish to proceed and others may not want to take
part. After all, if we are realistic the capacity of the Member
States to project foreign influence in different parts of the
world varies depending on their history, depending on their scale
and depending on their current trading pattern. It does make sense
to have the possibility of a number of countries going ahead without
everybody having to take part; but we would retain unanimity for
that initial decision in adopting policy.
|
