Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
RT HON
DOUGLAS ALEXANDER
MP, MR TIM
BARROW, MR
DAVID FROST
AND MS
KAREN PIERCE
8 FEBRUARY 2006
Q1 Chairman: Minister, welcome. We are
delighted to see you at the European Scrutiny Committee again.
We have a fair bit we want to cover with you so we will kick off.
We might perhaps discuss European Security and Defence Policy
and CFSP more generally later on. First, why does the Government
think that a double-hatted EU Special Representative is the right
answer in Macedonia?
Mr Alexander: Firstly, with your
permission, Chairman, if I could just introduce the co-witnesses
supporting me in this appearance today. I have David Frost, who
is the Director of European Union within the Foreign Office, and
Karen Pierce, who is the leader of the Balkans Team, and Tim Barrow,
who deals with external European matters. In terms of double-hatting,
you will be familiar, of course, with the correspondence and I
have taken careful note of the letter that the Committee has sent
back to me. Firstly, I would say that the view that we articulated,
I articulated, in my letter to you earlier last year, holds good,
that we do not regard this as a general principle but rather the
specific circumstances meriting consideration. I took careful
note of the point that, in turn, you replied, that you would be
keen to have this discussion if we were to extend the remit of
double-hatting. The reason for the extension, firstly, is that
the timing of the arrangement for the individual in question fell
at a point only four months prior to the normal period of renewal
for Special Representatives, so the sole significance of writing
to you at this stage is the fact that the mandate runs out at
the end of February. Our experience and our discussions with others
lead us to believe that it has been an effective approach that
has been taken on the ground. That being said, I enquired very
carefully with officials, when evidence came to us of the need
to renew this mandate and the choice was given to me, as to the
basis on which this could be differentiated from other situations
with other Special Representatives. Firstly, I think it is worth
bearing in mind that the Balkans do represent particular challenges
to us, which are themselves distinctive. It is hard to think of
another area where there is the intergovernmental aspect of the
European Union work sitting alongside so closely the Commission's
work, in terms of supporting other efforts within the Balkans,
and the particular status of Macedonia therefore I think merits
particular consideration. In terms of the effectiveness on the
ground, we do believe that the provisions that we secured in terms
of the terms of reference for the initial appointment were justified,
and continue to be justified, and we would be looking for similar
assurances in terms of the extension. We believe that provided
adequate protection to our interests, in terms of the intergovernmental
nature of the Council's business, and would avoid the kind of
potential concerns as to confusion of lines of accountability
between the areas of responsibility reporting upwards to the Commission
and the areas of responsibility reporting upwards to the Council.
Q2 Jim Dobbin: The Chairman mentioned
Macedonia specifically. If Macedonia, why not elsewhere, when
the EU and the Commission are both engaged in political work and
technical assistance? Could you elaborate on that?
Mr Alexander: We have got no concrete
proposals for other, similar situations, in terms of double-hatting.
I am aware that some Member States have been looking at the possibility
of this providing a model for other areas, in particular in Bosnia
and Kosovo, where there is a similar congruence of Commission
responsibilities and Council responsibilities. My view on that,
similarly to the view I expressed specifically in relation to
Macedonia back earlier last year, was that those would need to
be judged very carefully on the basis of the individual circumstances.
Also that we would be looking for, if we were to reach the choice
that it was an effective response to the challenges we faced,
exactly the same type of assurances that we secured at the time
of the mandate being written.
Q3 Chairman: Is not this effectively
the introduction of a central component of the foreign policy
elements of the Constitutional Treaty?
Mr Alexander: No. I can assure
you, I looked at this very carefully, both when the original proposal
came across my desk and then, subsequently, when I wrote to you
seeking support for the continuation of the double-hatting arrangement
in Macedonia. Firstly, it is based on existing Treaty provisions.
Secondly, it does not anticipate the draft Constitutional Treaty.
Thirdly, I think it can be very clearly distinguished from the
External Action Service, on the basis that the External Action
Service does require Treaty change and would service a Foreign
Minister. There has not been Treaty change and there is not a
Foreign Minister, so I think that explains the great care we took
and worked hard to secure, in terms of the clear demarcation of
responsibilities between the intergovernmental part of CFSP and
the areas of work that this individual does to support the Commission
in its efforts.
Q4 Mr Cash: Am I right in saying
that when you are dealing with joint actions, under what was originally
the Maastricht Treaty, that then takes away the unanimity provisions
in respect of activities that are taken within that sphere of
joint action, and thereby you can operate thereafter by qualified
majority vote? In respect of the question of the relationship
to the Constitutional Treaty, I know it was intended that Javier
Solana would become sort of the High Representative and with all
the panoply of power, and no doubt glory, that you get from it.
Nonetheless, in relation to our own concern, for example, about
what is going on in Palestine, etc., Hamas was visited by Javier
Solana, as I understand it, secretly. I just wonder on what basis
he was entitled to do that, and did the Government take a view
on it and, if so, was it authorised?
Mr Alexander: Firstly, in terms
of qualified majority voting, it does apply in this area, and
I will ask Tim to share with you the specific reference in the
Treaty[1]
that does bring it into operation. Specifically on the Macedonian
double-hatting issue, I think it is only fair to be clear with
the Committee that we did become convinced of the arguments that
were put to us last year, that it made sense, in the specific
circumstances of Macedonia, to have this arrangement, and therefore
it was not for us a policy disagreement with others, we were looking
for assurances in terms of how it would operate in practice. In
terms of the High Representative, he does have continuing responsibility
to the General Affairs Council, but you are right in recognising
that he would have had different responsibilities had the Constitutional
Treaty come into force and been ratified. I am not familiar with
the exact basis on which he travelled to the Middle East that
you refer to; if you want to provide me with the specific meeting
dates in question, of course I will make sure that an answer is
facilitated to you. I can assure you that Javier Solana, probably
more than anybody else in the European Union, is only too acutely
aware that the Constitutional Treaty has not been ratified and
therefore his job has not changed.
Q5 Nia Griffith: If I can move on to
energy and economic reform, what methods are the Government examining
to make sure that there is a genuinely open energy market within
the European Union? My fear is very much that other people can
come here and we do not get in, particularly in places like France.
Mr Alexander: There were really
three aspects to the initiative that we launched at Hampton Court
back in October, and I know that there was some criticism, both
in the United Kingdom and across Europe, when the Prime Minister
stated, when I was alongside him at the European Parliament, immediately
ahead of Hampton Court, that he was keen to see progress in relation
to an energy policy. I think most of us now, given the events
that we have witnessed both in the Russian Federation and Ukraine,
regard the conclusions that were reached at Hampton Court as showing
some prescience. The three main aspects of energy policy were,
firstly, the issue of energy security, which clearly is relevant
and will continue to be relevant in the future. Secondly, the
issue of energy diversity and the diversity of supply, and that
has very practical consequences for us in terms of the operation
of not just the Grid across Europe but the pipeline access, particularly
for gas, to Europe. Thirdly, there is the issue of having a genuine
open market within the European Union, which you referred to;
that is one of the key issues on which work is being taken forward.
We anticipate that Commissioner Piebalgs will publish a Green
Paper next month, I think it is in March that the Energy Commissioner
is due to publish his proposals. Again just to explain, following
those six workstreams which were identified at Hampton Court,
if I recollect accurately, four of them were the responsibility
of the Commission and two for Javier Solana, as the High Representative.
It was merely a factual report that was provided to the December
Council, outlining that work had begun on the areas of work identified
in Hampton Court previously, in October. We are looking now to
Commissioner Piebalgs, in what he will publish next month as a
Green Paper, to deal with not just the issue of security and diversity
but also the issue of a genuinely liberalised energy market.
Q6 Nia Griffith: Do you see any particular
obstacles to finding a way forward, particularly in relation to
security and supply?
Mr Alexander: It is a huge question,
which probably I will not do justice to by way of answering. In
terms of security of supply, I think we all have much to gain
by ensuring that there is greater transparency in the energy markets
internationally and looking to how we can secure international
agreement so that there can be that genuine transparency, not
just within the European Union but beyond. Secondly, I think there
is a case for seeing whether we can discuss more effectively the
needs of Europe as a net importer of gas, in particular, but of
fuel supplies generally with principal suppliers. We have been
in a position in the past, particularly in relation to the Russian
Federation, where there have been very strong bilateral contacts,
but perhaps not as strong a collective voice speaking about the
needs of the energy users. Of course, at this point it is standard
to say that, while a major energy producer, like Russia, has an
interest in energy continuity and energy provision, they also
have an interest in having secure customers and customers who
want continuity of supply. I think, frankly, one of the areas
that will likely emerge from Commissioner Piebalgs' Green Paper
is more thought on this issue of how we make sure that in our
relations with energy suppliers we manage to leverage more effectively
on the fact that we are a very considerable and growing energy
market in the years to come.
Q7 Mr Hamilton: Minister, you talk
in terms of security of supply and many of us will be talking
about security of supply being within a United Kingdom framework,
not a European framework. I would not like to depend on nuclear
power coming across from France, because they are determined to
go ahead with nuclear power station expansion. When you talk about
energy security, that also affects other areas, such as coal.
Poland has a substantial coal industry. Germany has maintained
protection for its coal industry. When you talk in terms of security
of supply, why should we not talk about security of supply for
the UK first, then talk in terms of Europe after that?
Mr Alexander: I do not see there
being any contradiction between establishing security of supply
both for the United Kingdom and for Europe. I think we will be
able to effect our influence and extend our national interests
more effectively by working alongside other countries which themselves
are net importers of fuel than if we simply have bilateral contact
with those countries which are principally energy suppliers. I
certainly take on board your point that there are very considerable
domestic aspects to meeting the needs of energy use in the years
to come, as well as an agenda for Europe. I think we have got
to look carefully at where the European Union can add value. I
believe, for example, having a genuinely liberalised and open
energy market is one area where the institutions of the European
Union can add value. At the same time, in terms of our own energy
review that is underway at the moment, there are public policy
choices that we need to make clear within the United Kingdom.
That has implications not just in terms of targets for renewables
but also a discussion in terms of coal, and in particular clean
coal technology, and what role it can play in achieving the kinds
of targets that this Government has set in terms of carbon emissions.
My understanding of this, although it is a policy responsibility
principally of the DTI, is that the difficulty with seeing almost
instrumentally that, because there are concerns in terms of energy
security, we should at this stage immediately redevelop the British
coal industry is not that it is not a matter which will be given
serious consideration but that, for exactly the reason you cite,
the present price of coal imported actually is still below that
of some of the estimates of increased coal production within the
United Kingdom. It is rather a matter of economics than of policy
that we continue to see significant imports of coal coming in
from elsewhere within the European Union.
Q8 Mr Hamilton: You believe, Minister,
that we should not protect our industries but we should allow
Germany and Poland to protect their industries? That is a naive
point of view, as I know.
Mr Alexander: No, I do not think
it is naive, and if I have communicated a sense that we should
not do what we can to support British industries then clearly
that is not my intention. I have to say, I have got a great deal
of sympathy for the individual who is questioning me on this matter,
given his own experience. I have got less sympathy for his immediate
neighbour on the Committee, suggesting that we have not looked
after the British coal industry, given the record of previous
governments in relation to not just manufacturing but mining here
in the United Kingdom. I do think that one of the opportunities
provided by the review that is taking place is to take a fresh
look not just at the issue of renewables, not just at the issue
of nuclear energy, but also at the issue of the British coal industry.
I make merely a factual point that at the moment there are significant
imports coming into the United Kingdom of coal from elsewhere
within the European Union, on the basis of individual choices
being made on the basis of commercial contracts. That, of course,
however, should not preclude us from seeing what opportunities
there are for developing the British coal industry in the future.
Q9 Richard Younger-Ross: Minister,
is it not time, on liberalisation, that the UK Government, rather
than waiting for reports, ought to do a little bit of stamping
of feet and proverbial swinging of handbags? When you go home
and turn on your light, the chances are that you will be contributing
towards the profits of a French company. When you went to your
gite in France, if you have a gite in France, I do not know, and
you turned on the light you would not be contributing to the benefits
of a British company because we are not allowed to buy into their
market. Is it not time that actually we stood and said, "Look,
enough is enough; you have to open up your markets"?
Mr Alexander: On a factual point,
when I go home and switch on the lights, it is a Scottish company
that benefits, I am glad to say, and when I go on holiday it tends
to be the Isle of Mull, so it is Hydro Electric, another Scottish
company, which benefits, so even when I am on holiday I hope I
am supporting the efforts of British industry. Your point, however,
I think is well taken. I think that energy is one of the areas
where there is more scope for progress being made in having a
genuinely liberalised market; that is why we look forward to what
the Commission proposes in the Green Paper. As I say, I would
not preclude further action from the British Government in the
future to make sure that it is, in fact as well as in concept,
a genuinely open energy market.
Q10 Jim Dobbin: Minister, in the
statement you made on the institutional issues, you mentioned
transparency. What are the reasons for limiting public access
to the Council's legislative deliberations to cases where the
co-decision procedure is applied?
Mr Alexander: In terms of transparency,
the position of the British Government was set out by the Prime
Minister in answer to a question on the eve of the British Presidency,
when he acknowledged that this was one area where he felt further
progress could be made, notwithstanding the absence of Treaty
change, so in policy terms we are supportive of seeing greater
transparency. The challenge therefore we faced, and I faced as
the Europe Minister, in the course of the six-month British Presidency,
was how, in practical terms, to progress that policy goal, and
essentially there were two choices. One, essentially, was to take
a more maximal position and seek fundamentally to change the Rules
of Procedure of the Council. The second was a more limited endeavour,
which was actually to secure a political agreement that this was
important, to better implement the Rules of Procedure as presently
they exist and to secure a review of the arrangements in 2006.
Frankly, I would have liked to secure the first, that it was necessary
to work alongside others and secure a consensus in this matter,
and we were unable to secure a consensus for the more maximal
position. However, I would not diminish the significance of what
we have achieved in the second, whereby we got a political declaration,
we have got, I believe, some practical changes to the operation
of the Rules of Procedure, in terms of how we will tighten up
how they are interpreted, and also that we have a review in 2006.
It is a step in the right direction, it is far from the last step,
but I think it was a significant step and one which we hope we
can build on in the future.
Q11 Michael Connarty: I do apologise,
Minister, for taking you back to economic policy. We are not trying
to trick you here. That is not in my mellow nature, in my mature
years: the Chairman did not see me asking to be called. I had
the privilege of representing this Committee last week in the
European Parliament, in a very important debate on the Lisbon
Agenda, with all of the EU countries and applicant countries.
What struck me there was that the Action Plans, all 24 chapters
of each, are written in different phraseology for every country,
and some said it led to diffusion, others said it led to confusion,
in terms of where we were going on the Lisbon Agenda. The focus
of the Spring European Council is to be on economic reform, I
believe. On which issues in particular does the Government want
to see progress, specifically what are your target issues, what
is your template for progress, and what outcomes does the UK Government
want from that Council?
Mr Alexander: Firstly, let me
echo a point that you made in your question, in terms of the Action
Plans. I have been intrigued, in discussions with colleagues around
Europe, as to how, particularly in some of the newer Member States,
the development of the Action Plans themselves has served to further
embed economic reform in the process of change within their economies.
Frankly, I think we are in a fairly distinctive place in this
argument in Britain, because many of the proposals that we have
made, if you look at the British Action Plan, it talks about macroeconomic
stability, it talks about employment growth, it talks about productivity,
these are issues which have been the stuff of political debate
in Britain for many years. In other countries, I think, frankly,
the fact that they have had to develop, for the Commission, these
Action Plans has been a very useful means by which they have been
able to strengthen the hand of those wishing to reform their economies
domestically, and in that sense I do think it is important. The
areas of work in terms of those individual Member States necessarily
and appropriately reflect the particular challenges that those
Member States face. In terms of the Spring Council, you are right
to say that economic reform will be the key focus. That is a matter
of pride to us, partly because we pushed the economic reform agenda
during our Presidency but also urged our Austrian colleagues to
take forward that work. I have to say, credit is due to José
Manuel Barroso as well, on behalf of the Commission, for continuing
again the efforts that were made during our Presidency, and he
is on record, at the turn of the year, as saying jobs and growth
should be the priority for the European Union, as reflected in
the Spring Council. In terms of the Spring Council, where I would
look specifically would be in those workstreams that were identified
coming out of Hampton Court. Again, I think I mentioned to the
Committee that there was some scepticism at the time of the devising
of the Hampton Court priorities as to whether actually they would
become embedded in the work either of the Commission or of the
European Union more generally. I have been heartened by the extent
to which the Hampton Court priorities have become part of the
lexicon of how Europe works, even in the few short months since
October. That would mean a focus, for example, on taking forward
work on research and development, on energy, as we have discussed,
with Mr Piebalgs' report, and also more generally on this issue
of how universities can work better with not just the research
resources that are available but the business community to translate
European ideas into European products and European jobs.
Q12 Michael Connarty: You have not
mentioned work, given that unemployment is rising in many of the
key countries of the European Union to such an extent that they
are saying that some of the anticipated moves forward on the EU
economy are stalling because of this lack of work. What do you
think we can bring to the Council that will move people forward
in that respect and actually create a longer work life in Europe
and a more productive use of labour in Europe, which does seem
to be one of the key stumbling-blocks in some of the stronger
economies in Europe at the moment?
Mr Alexander: Of course, employment
is one of the priorities, as I said, for our own national reform
programme, which was published recently on behalf of the UK Government,
but you are right in identifying not just unemployment but long-term
unemployment as one of the principal challenges that the European
Union faces. I would argue that our experience over the last eight
years here in the United Kingdom reflects the fact that there
is no single silver bullet that can secure employment growth.
You need a range of different strategies, starting from the foundation
of economic stability, building on that in terms of investment
in the supply side, through ensuring that your people are equipped
with the requisite skills. You need open markets so that you can
provide not just the training and support that people need but
create the job opportunities whereby they can secure employment.
In that sense, I think the broad thrust of Lisbon, which was asking
how we take Europe up the value chain of the modern economy, is
not, in itself, contradictory to a high jobs strategy. I think,
actually, in the modern economy, given the increasing pressures
that we are facing from countries like China and India, with which
we will never be able to compete on the basis of low skills, low
wages, low added value, it is not an optional extra to say we
should have a renewed focus on research and development or on
universities, it is an essential foundation not just of economic
success but of employment growth. Specifically on your question
in terms of how we ensure the European workforce is capable of
meeting that challenge, one of the areas which were identified
at Hampton Court was the area of demographics. I have to say,
when I read that title initially, I thought what is the locus
of the European Union on this issue of demographics, will it be
simply a report evidencing the declining birth rate in Europe
compared with the rising populations in countries like China and
India; in fact, it covers a whole range of areas which I think
are very relevant to your question. For example, the issue of
childcare, how do we ensure that we are able to provide economic
opportunities and the means by which those economic opportunities
can be grasped by female workers, in particular. Secondly, it
looks at this issue in terms of the working life and how we can
ensure that, in an era where life expectancy is increasing, we
do get the balance right, a challenge that we are facing here
domestically in the United Kingdom as well, on the issue of pensions
and indeed of retirement age. There are a lot of issues which
I think are directly relevant to ensuring that the European workforce
is capable of rising to the challenge and which is complementary
to all of the other steps that are being taken, in relation to
Lisbon and also in relation to Hampton Court.
Q13 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Minister,
your White Paper published last month has a section on Better
Regulation, about the need to lighten administrative burdens and
improve competitiveness, on page 10, but you are not doing this
at home, are you? Last Thursday the House debated the regulations
to implement the Artists' Resale Right Directive and you are gold-plating
that Directive, and the threshold at which it applies has been
reduced below the
3,000 required in the Directive down to
1,000, to the dismay of the art market who had their
objections overruled, even though it complicates their business
and reduces their competitiveness. These are fine words in your
White Paper but who is responsible for implementing it across
Whitehall, or are you just trying to tell the Europeans what to
do but not doing it at home?
Mr Alexander: The policy position,
which I understand is a subject of debate within the House, indeed
of the deferred vote, that I am sure most of us have just taken
part in, this question arose, is the balance to be struck between
the interests of the artists and indeed of dealers. I have in
front of me the description that I have been offered in terms
of what the initial European instrument stated, which was that
there needed to be a balance of benefits to artists in rewarding
their creativity and low risk of cost to the art market. We are
required to set a threshold between zero and
3,000 and setting the threshold at
1,000, therefore, I would argue, is not itself gold-plating.
To go beyond
3,000 I would have some sympathy with your arguments,
but given the terms of the threshold that is set between zero
and
3,000 then there is a genuine choice to be made as
to what the threshold should be according to the public policy
choice that we make here within the United Kingdom and that balance
between the interests of the art market and indeed of individual
artists.
Q14 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: That will
not do. Let me remind you that the Government, your Government,
voted against this Directive, but instead of implementing it to
the minimum you went below that and now you are going to scoop
up into the net thousands of extra objects and small businesses
and artists, many of whom are against the Directive, because,
of course, it will simply send the business to New York. Instead
of doing what is required by the Directive you go beyond it. That
contradicts the message in your White Paper which is about reducing
administrative burdens and improving competitiveness; so why are
you saying one thing in a government White Paper while, in the
same week, you are going beyond it in regulation? There is a very
familiar story here, but when are you finally going to stop publishing
fine words which are simply not implemented in practice? It causes
immense cynicism about the entire European project as well as
reducing your own reputation.
Mr Alexander: On the specific
detail of the Artists' Resale Right, it is not a matter for which
I have direct policy responsibility and for that reason . . .
. I do not say that because, of course, I am bound by collective
responsibility, but I will ensure that a letter is forthcoming
to the Committee on the specific policy matter that you raise.[2]
My clear understanding, on the basis of the briefing I undertook
before the appearance before this Committee, was that a balance
did need to be struck between zero and
3,000 and it was on that basis a policy choice was
made to establish the figure of
1,000, but I will ensure a reply is forthcoming.
On your general point in terms of gold-plating, it is of course
a matter which is of concern to us; that is why we have asked
Neil Davidson QC to undertake a review of this, so that we can
move beyond the often rather sterile debate as to what level of
regulation exists and whether gold-plating does exist. I think
it would serve the interests of this Committee and indeed of the
Government that we have that report as the basis on which we can
look at this matter in the future.
Q15 Mr Steen: Transparency: a question
that my colleague, Mr Dobbin, asked a moment ago. I ask this question
only for a bit of advice and perhaps some insight. This Committee
goes to countries which take over the Presidency every six months.
It is a costly exercise, an enjoyable one and very interesting
that we go into these countries. The Chairman led a splendid delegation—of
which I think I was the only Conservative—to Austria, just
before Christmas, and we questioned all the officials and all
the ministers and we were treated royally, and we went away having
a very clear idea, or certainly I did, about what the Austrians
were about. We learned, I think it was last week, that the Austrians
are about to revive the dead patient, in the shape of the Constitution,
and we knew nothing about this, the Chairman knew nothing about
it, none of the Members knew anything about it. I wonder whether
you have been privy to the Austrian Presidency's thinking, or
whether we are all in the dark, or it is just a total red herring?
Mr Alexander: I must say, you
make your trip to Vienna immediately before Christmas sound very
hard work. I am afraid I was in Strasbourg and Brussels at the
time. I think you got slightly the better deal. In terms of the
discussions we have had with the Austrians, of course we discuss,
as you would expect from an outgoing Presidency, the areas of
priority of the incoming Presidency. I imagine the Committee may
want to ask about the European tax in due course, given the comments
both of the Austrian President and indeed the Austrian Chancellor.
It is not for us to dictate to an incoming Presidency what their
priorities would be, but beyond the public statements that have
been made, in particular by Ursula Plassnik, the Foreign Minister
of Austria, I think we are broadly where I would have expected
to be, which is just over halfway through the period of reflection.
Of course, one would expect the Presidency to have something to
say, who are responsible for facilitating the rendezvous which
will take place in the June European Council. The Austrian position
on the Constitution has been developed historically. They have
a particular responsibility during their Presidency, not simply
to represent their national interest but to find consensus. In
that sense, I do not regard it as being in any way threatening
that the Austrians have a different emphasis from perhaps the
public comments that have emerged from the British Government
over recent weeks or months. The challenge is to make sure that
over the weeks and months ahead we are able to engage constructively
with all European partners, as we anticipate where we will be
in the June European Council. Frankly, our priority during the
first six months after the previous June Council was to have an
effective and successful Presidency; you would expect me to say
that. Of course, now we are giving thought to these broader issues
of the future of Europe, and in particular the status of the draft
Constitutional Treaty. The Prime Minister made reference to it
yesterday, in his appearance before the Liaison Committee the
previous day, that day we had also spoken about it in the House
of Commons. I am sure this is a matter where there will be continued
debate within the United Kingdom. A final point I would make,
however, would be, as well as the comments of Ursula Plassnik
there have been significant comments from other European politicians
since the turn of the year. I read with particular interest the
comments that President Chirac made to his diplomats' conference
in the first couple of weeks of the year, in Paris, and indeed
the article that my opposite number, Catherine Colonna, placed
in Le Figaro early in the year as well, both of which indicated
that they were looking for incremental improvements to the operation
of the European Union on the basis of existing Treaties. I have
also noted, for example, the comment of Bernard Bot, the Dutch
Foreign Minister, that for the Dutch the Treaty is dead. There
is a range of opinions out there and I would not regard the statement
by the Austrian Presidency at this stage as being in any way definitive
as to where the debate will reach in the months to come.
Q16 Michael Gove: I just want to
continue on the issue of transparency and take you back to Brussels
and Strasbourg. The European budget deal which the British Presidency
brokered, I think I am right in saying that we have not yet had
a detailed publication outlining how each nation stands, in terms
of increased growth and net contributions, abatements and receipts.
In response to a question that I asked of the Treasury on 31 January,
your colleague, the Financial Secretary, published some very interesting
figures. The Prime Minister said, in a statement to the House
on 19 December, that our abatement would rise, not fall, but in
Mr Lewis' answer he points out that while the abatement indeed
does rise over the next two years then it falls in 2010 and again
in 2011. It is also the case that net receipts from the European
Union fall from 5.6 billion to 4.2 billion by 2011, meaning that
our net contribution increases by over £1 billion. That was
not made clear at the time by the Prime Minister. These figures
had to be unearthed through a parliamentary question. Why cannot
we have a publication of not just Britain's position in the budget
deal but our position relative to other nations?
Mr Alexander: Forgive me but I
must take issue with the honourable gentleman. In terms of the
statement that was made to the House immediately following the
Council on 19 December 2005, let me remind the Committee as to
what the Prime Minister stated at that stage. He stated, and I
quote: "Because the rebate stays on CAP and all spending
in the EU15, the rebate will rise, not fall, to an average of
5.8 billion in payments terms from 2007. In terms
of net contributions, our contribution will increase by 63% over
the next financial period in comparison with 2006. France's contribution,
by contrast, will increase by 124%. Moreover, Mr Speaker, after
some 20 years of paying under the original rebate twice as much
as France, the United Kingdom and France contributions will from
2007, for the first time in history, be in rough parity. We have
delivered a budget deal that is
160 billion cheaper than the original Commission
proposals, provides for a huge transfer of spending from the original
15 to the new Member States of Eastern Europe and preserves the
British rebate in full on the CAP and all spending in EU15."
If the allegation is that is inconsistent with the answer that
the Economic Secretary gave, I would certainly be interested as
to on what basis the claim is being made.
Q17 Michael Gove: I think the particular
point, Chairman, is that there may well be inconsistencies, actually,
because on the basis of the answer from the Treasury the abatement
will fall after 2010, something not revealed and stated by the
Prime Minister. He promised to make assertions about France's
and Italy's contribution, yet we do not have detailed figures
which have been published in the public domain so we can make
the judgment as to whether or not the Prime Minister's assessment
was correct. Given that the Treasury statement runs counter to
the Prime Minister's statement, why cannot we have the publication
of the full budget deal?
Mr Alexander: In terms of the
publication of every statistic in the Treasury, I am sure nothing
would give the Quai d'Orsay greater happiness and joy at
this particular stage of the discussions, in terms of the inter-institutional
agreement, than to receive all of the workings of the British
Treasury, indeed every other Member State's, finance department.
However, of course we are under a clear obligation to Parliament
to answer questions factually, and indeed to account truthfully
on the floor of the House of Commons. I have no evidence, from
the question that you have put to me, that there is such a disparity
between the statement that was made, indeed you yourself have
conceded, that the abatement will rise from where it has been
during the period 2000-06, unless you have noticed anything from
the previous question.
Q18 Michael Gove: I am merely quoting
what the Treasury itself says, rising from 3.9, going up to 4.8,
before then falling again to 3.5?
Mr Alexander: Right; so you do
accept that it rises.
Michael Gove: Before it falls.
Q19 Richard Younger-Ross: On transparency,
Minister, the Council of Ministers; we have looked at making it
more open but the openness seems to be rather shallow. The Netherlands,
Sweden, think more should be done to make votes, for instance,
more transparent so we know how individual ministers have voted
and countries have voted. Why did the UK Government not join The
Netherlands and Sweden when they had the opportunity to do so?
Can you say, will individual countries' vote be transparent at
a future date, or not?
Mr Alexander: The answer to the
simple question as to why we did not join those two other countries
is not a policy issue but a proprietary issue. We deemed it inappropriate,
given we were holding the Presidency at the time, effectively
then to make a side declaration as to the British position when
we were seeking to secure the maximum position of consensus within
the Council. In policy terms, I find myself in sympathy with the
points that were made that we should aim to go significantly further
than what has been achieved to date. I would merely rehearse the
arguments that I gave you earlier. Really there were two options
which could have been achieved. Clearly, the Swedes were minded
to go further and had we been the only voice in the room we would
have gone further as well; our Prime Minister stated that earlier
in the Presidency. The fact is, we did have to secure what agreement
we could and that is why we have both secured the review and secured
a political declaration, but I hope that, in turn, we will be
able to go further in the future.
1 Note by Witness: Article 23.2 TEU specifies
certain strictly limited circumstances, including the appointment
of EUSRs, where the Council acts by qualified majority. The majority
of Joint Actions and other CFSP Decisions are of course taken
by the Council acting unanimously as specified in Article 23.1. Back
2
See Ev 13 Back
|
