|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC1515-i House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
CURRENT MATTERS RELATING TO THE EUROPEAN UNION
Wednesday 12 July 2006 RT HON GEOFFREY HOON MP, MR ANTHONY SMITH and MS SHAN MORGAN Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 81
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the European Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday 12 July 2006 Members present Mr David S Borrow Mr William Cash Michael Connarty Jim Dobbin Nia Griffith Mr David Heathcoat-Amory Mr Lindsay Hoyle Angus Robertson
In the absence of the Chairman, Michael Connarty was called to the Chair ________________ Witnesses: Rt Hon Geoffrey Hoon, a Member of the House, Minister for Europe, Mr Anthony Smith, Director European Political Affairs, and Ms Shan Morgan, Director EU, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, gave evidence. Q1 Michael Connarty: Good afternoon, Minister. We are sorry we kept you a bit longer than we thought but with so many areas we would like to cover with you we had to decide which ones to prioritise. We may not get to them all today and hopefully you will be willing to come back and continue the dialogue with us in the future. I welcome you here and we welcome you back to the post. You have a great deal of experience and we are looking forward to your contribution. Everyone on the Committee holds you in the highest esteem with your knowledge and activity in the European field. The first question is one that has always been part of our dialogue in this Committee. Is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office genuinely committed to the earliest possible scrutiny of both legislative and non-legislative proposals under CFSP and ESDP? Mr Hoon: Yes. Q2 Michael Connarty: Why is it then, if you look at our notes, that we have so many cases where it says "Govt position not given", "Fuller report expected", "Promise that early warning ..." et cetera, many occasions on which there have been failures of what has been listed here as under-performance by the Foreign Office when, in fact, we probably would have said in the past that we had a higher level of quality of information coming to the Committee than we have had since the beginning of this year? Mr Hoon: Michael, you slightly warned me in your letter that in effect you would be raising this issue, so I have gone back and checked both the statistics and the practice, and if I can be quite frank with the Committee I cannot quite see any basis for the criticism that you have made. There are something like 60 explanatory memoranda that have been provided to the Committee since January alone and only in four of those has there been an override. I think there is a proper explanation in relation to each of them, so unless there is something specific that the Committee are complaining about I am not wholly persuaded that this is a fair bill. I am perfectly prepared, if there are specific complaints, to go back to the department and raise issues with the department but really the statistics do not seem to bear out the points that you are making. Q3 Angus Robertson: Can I follow up on that point? We have got a list here of a whole host of things. Mr Hoon: I have not, so ----- Q4 Angus Robertson: Maybe I can share some of the Committee's views on those particular proposals - "Govt position not given", "Fuller report expected". Mr Hoon: Hang on. Q5 Angus Robertson: Sorry; may I finish please? Mr Hoon: No, no; hang on a second. Just saying, "Govt position not given" without telling me what it is about and the context and the circumstances does not help the Committee and it certainly does not help me. Q6 Michael Connarty: I think that is a fair point. What we are trying to illustrate, and we could all go through a litany, is that in reality of the 60 you mentioned 31 have had criticisms from our advisers as to the quality of the information that has been sent to this Committee since the beginning of 2006. Mr Hoon: I obviously am not aware of that criticism. If you would like to share it with me I will look at it but, of course, Michael, the other criticism that you make and the main criticism that you have made is that we do not pass information speedily to the Committee. Of course, there is a necessary balance between trying to inform the Committee in due time and preparing an explanatory memorandum. If we spend a great deal more time on perfecting every dot and comma of those documents then no doubt you will justifiably complain on behalf of the Committee that we are not giving you information in time. If there are aspects of these documents that are not sufficiently well prepared I certainly am very willing to have a look at them but I am going to have to do one thing or the other. I am either going to try and get these documents to you early in order to allow the Committee to properly carry out its functions and perhaps necessarily in some cases not spending as much time on them as officials and I might ideally like, or we delay, in which case I believe that we would cause the Committee greater difficulty. Q7 Angus Robertson: How would you account for us having this impression specifically from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Surely, of all the Government departments that would have the best understanding of European business, you would expect to be providing explanatory memoranda and documentation of the highest standards as opposed to something on which around the Committee we share a severe concern about the quality of the documentation that we are receiving from the Foreign Office. How is this a surprise to you? Mr Hoon: Because I have not been aware of it. I do not think this was contained in the Chairman's letter, to the best of my recollection. The letter was largely about timing and delay. If there is some issue about quality I am perfectly willing to look at the question of quality in response to specific complaints about specific occasions, but again it is quite difficult to deal with these rather generalised allegations which may be no more than some members of the Committee taking a different view of particular issues than other members of the Committee. Q8 Michael Connarty: Can I assure you that these matter do not arise on an individual basis from Committee members? These are the analyses of officials that we hold in very high regard who have served this Committee very well over many years. In fact, I think we have expressed on each occasion the concerns that we have and we are not talking about individual cases; we are talking about a trend, as if there has been a foot taken off the pedal within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in terms of scrutiny. If it is other departments we will raise it similarly with them. I know your aspirations will be the same as ours in that when we get good scrutiny we feel that we have good material to scrutinise. Mr Hoon: Michael, could you help me? I genuinely want to help the Committee. Obviously, if there is a problem the Committee is anxious about I want to address it, I want to talk to my senior officials in the department to resolve these questions, but again quality can cover, if you will forgive me for saying so, a multitude of potential criticisms. Is it a lack of detail? Is it a lack of volume? Is it a subjective assessment of the material? At the moment I have no idea of what it is that you are referring to. Your letter does not actually refer to the question of quality. It refers to timing and availability of information, so I did a lot of research on that. If it is about quality it would be extraordinarily helpful to me to give me the information so that I can then go back to the officials and ensure that the Committee's concerns are addressed, but I cannot do it on the basis of these rather generalised observations. Q9 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: This is not about detail. This is about a contempt by your Department for the procedures of the House. Let me give you two specific examples which your Department is perfectly well aware of because they have been the subject of correspondence already. The first is about the EU planning team being sent to Kosovo. This was a totally predictable undertaking, and indeed it was the subject of a decision by the Council on 10 April but it originates in a report to the Council dating from 6 December last year. Despite that you had to override the scrutiny reserve of this Committee. Secondly, can I raise the issue of the Commission communication on engagement with Iraq? Again, this is not an unexpected undertaking because it arises out of the elections in Iraq but it is extremely hazardous, so obviously we wish to scrutinise it. You only left it with three working days between the issue of the communication and the decision having to be taken in the European Council meeting, so again you had to override scrutiny. Mr Hoon: And there is a perfectly ----- Q10 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Can I remind you, before you answer, that on the Convention on the Future of Europe your predecessors assured me that it was a priority for the British Government to enhance the powers of national parliaments and keep us better informed particularly about foreign affairs. This is a complete sham and, frankly, those assurances were misleading when in practice you are persistently and repeatedly going ahead with actions and overriding the scrutiny reserve, which you know perfectly well is the prerogative of this Committee which you are now in front of, so can you give a rather better explanation for this systematic contempt for the procedures rather than simply saying it is all a matter of detail and you have no idea what has been going on? Your officials know perfectly well so perhaps you could check with them before you give the next answer. Mr Hoon: I can give you an explanation because both of those documents I have looked at and the circumstances are identical in each case. Definitive texts were not available until they were supplied to the Committee at the point at which they were finalised. In one case, in relation to Kosovo, the Committee was on recess. I am not prepared to allow draft documents to come before the Committee. Draft documents, as Mr Heathcoat-Amory will know from his previous ministerial experience, can change significantly before they are finalised and therefore I am only prepared to submit final documents. In that case the timing was dictated by the availability of the file document, and again I think it is in the interests of the Committee to have that, and as far as the renewed EU engagement with Iraq was concerned, again, the explanatory memorandum was deposited as the document was available and was done within a matter of days. I am afraid the Committee has to face up to the fact that there are circumstances in which the Foreign Office moves as quickly as possible and it is no slight to the Committee, it is not in any way a contempt of the Committee, and I would invite the honourable Member to withdraw that comment because officials and ministers are working extraordinarily hard to make this documentation available. Explanatory memoranda are looked at as a matter of urgency and are passed through the system very quickly, something I have checked. In the circumstances neither of these examples, I am afraid, makes the charge that is being made against the Foreign Office. In fact, both of them are very poor illustrations of the complaints that this particular Member is making. Q11 Michael Connarty: We do not want to get into a position where - and I know that ----- Mr Hoon: But "contempt", Michael, is a very strong word. Michael Connarty: I am taking your point. All I am trying to say is that it may give that impression and Members may wish to repeat it but I do not think anyone really believes that the people who work for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or yourself do hold this Committee in contempt. Unfortunately, a succession of issues gives an impression and people draw conclusions which may not be based on that approach from your department but I think the word is used often in here that that impression is given that that is the case and Mr Heathcoat-Amory might want to think about that for himself. Q12 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I have thought about it, and I am afraid I regard the Minister's reply as completely inadequate. Nothing he has said alters the fact that the four months' delay ----- Mr Hoon: I am sorry; that is completely wrong. Q13 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I am sorry. Can I just substantiate it? Mr Hoon: It is wrong. Q14 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: On 6 December of last year the Commission reported to the Council about the possibility of this planning team. The word "planning" indicates a degree of foreknowledge and planning. Why then was it not until 10 April that the Minister for Europe wrote that that an imminent decision was necessary requiring scrutiny override? You ought to insist and your Department should insist when they are dealing with the Commission and other Member States that everybody respects the treaty provisions regarding the status of Member States and their parliaments. Instead of rushing this through on matters of expediency you ought to respect what you are required to do, which is the position of Member States in what is after all an intergovernmental decision possibly regarding British assets and British personnel. Mr Hoon: That is precisely what was done. When the final text was available an explanatory memorandum was prepared. Unfortunately, the Committee was on recess at that time but as soon as the document could be made available to the Committee it was. Simply because a discussion had taken place some four months before, before a text had been finalised, does not really help the Committee. The Committee is not, I assume, going to sit and discuss the possibility of a whole range of issues that might or might not have seen action. This Committee, as I understand it, is here to scrutinise decisions and actions taken by the Council of Ministers and other institutions in the EU, and actions depend on decided documents that are in their final stage. It is unfair to suggest otherwise. Otherwise this Committee presumably will be in continuous session. Michael, can I just make two practical suggestions that I believe will help the Committee and help overcome some of these slightly less than substantive criticisms? First, it would be extraordinarily helpful if this Committee co-ordinated its meeting dates with its counterpart in the Lords. For example, the Lords Committee did not sit in the week prior to the Whitsun recess and the Commons Committee, this Committee, did not sit in the week following and as a result there were three weeks during which documents could not be cleared. If there is an issue about delay it would be helpful to my officials to be able to avoid having such a long period when it is not possible to clear documents. The second practical suggestion, if the Committee would give it some thought, - and I suspect what is being complained about quite often is in relation to CFSP, where obviously in a fast-moving international situation it is extraordinarily difficult to get documentation before the Committee where it is necessary, and I emphasise the word "necessary", for the UK Government to take a position - is to have a meeting of this Committee immediately before a GAC because most of the decisions on CFSP are going to take place at the General Affairs Council meetings, and to have this Committee meeting a few days before would help the Government in the sense of making sure that we can pass through relevant documentation, and I hope it would help the Committee because that would be a way of ensuring that the latest information was available. Even then in my experience of going to these meetings not all of the information could be made available because very often it is only supplied to the Council at the very last minute and sometimes after the Council has convened and is in session. Nevertheless, it would allow us to provide more information in a timely way to members of the Committee. Q15 Michael Connarty: Can I thank the Minister for putting that on the record and you know we are willing as a Committee to meet outwith formal sessions to discuss the question of scrutiny and how it works. Can I just underline the fact that this is not just a question of one member. This is a question of a consistent feeling within the Committee that we are not having made plain to us often in Committee papers that we are sent the position of the Government. It is not clear. I remember on many occasions when I have lectured to civil servants about the scrutiny process that I have said that any sense of obfuscation is not helpful to us, to the Government or in fact to the whole parliamentary process, nor is the feeling that we are not getting enough information to know exactly what the Government intends to do or hopes to do. We are capable of discerning the difference between a draft and a final document and I think it might be helpful if we saw drafts with the caveats about whether there are areas that are not quite certain, because we do get them like that and they are very helpful and we reserve the parts that are not quite clear and we can clear the parts that are clear. That is helpful and is not something we could not cope with as a committee. Mr Hoon: Michael, I am not prepared to do that. I make that clear and I make no apologies to the Committee for saying this. These documents change significantly in the course of negotiation and it does not make sense to have these documents in draft, before they are finalised, submitted to the Committee. It simply will not work for the Committee. This Committee will spend a lot of time, if you will forgive me for saying so, pointlessly debating documents that are going to change. It will not help the Government either because, frankly, we spend a great deal of time ensuring that these documents are in the right form before they are finalised. I really do not think that that is a sensible way forward. These documents change dramatically. Q16 Jim Dobbin: I think we are going to be talking in circles here. I think it would be fair to the Committee, to the Clerks who have highlighted the difficulties we have had, and to the department if the list that we have in front of us were given to the department to have a look at because these are the issues that we have raised as being problems. We are never going to be able to work together unless we know exactly what the specific issues are. I do not know whether the Committee will support me in that but I think that is the way ahead. If there is a problem there, and we perceive there is and the department perceives there is not, we need to come to some joint conclusion and share that knowledge. Mr Hoon: That would be very helpful. Q17 Mr Cash: You very kindly wrote to us on 12 July and you have just mentioned the fact that you were briefed up for that particular point, so perhaps I can focus on that. There is also in this list, though you have not seen it, and I rather agree with Mr Dobbin's point that it would be a good idea if you did, but I can give you one example, an issue in which I am particularly interested, and it is called European transparency. There is no dispute about this question because in this instance - and I am now referring back to the points that Mr Heathcoat-Amory was making - the conclusion that we came to and the summary, which I have in front of me and you will see when you get it, is, in relation to the document relating to European transparency, "Govt view not given". Mr Hoon, you and I have had a lot of time devoted to the European question in our parliamentary careers. The idea that you as the Minister on 21 June can issue a document relating to European transparency but not give the Government's view is simply comical. It is also serious because it is quite clear that you do have a view, so if the Government view is not given then why is it that you refuse to do so, and I had this out with you in the debate on this Plan D the other day in Standing Committee and you could not answer my questions then, but the problem we have is that in your letter you actually say, and this is the 12 July letter, that you do not believe that setting out the Government's detailed views on each of the Commission's recommendations will be helpful until the debate at EU level has developed further. On European transparency, Mr Hoon, it is absolutely crystal clear you have a view, so why the hell do you not actually give it to us in this paper? Mr Hoon: I think I have, and I also thought that the date was different from the one that you just set out because my letter says that we submitted this on 15 June, not 22 June. I think we may be at odds even on the date. Q18 Mr Cash: Let us wait and see. Mr Hoon: I set out a document ----- Q19 Michael Connarty: It is the date on which we discussed the papers, 22 June, so it was before the Committee on that day. Mr Hoon: That was a full week before you discussed it. Q20 Michael Connarty: Yes, we meet once a week; that would be right. You would send it on the day we were meeting, we would look at it the next day we met, seven days later. Mr Hoon: Yes. I am not quite sure what the point is. Michael Connarty: You focused on the timing. I do not know if you think that is the context of Mr Cash's question. Q21 Mr Cash: I do not want to get caught up in the technicalities that you have just described. What I am concerned about is that there is a document called European Transparency. We know that the Government has a view on it. The criticism of the Committee is that the Government's view is not given. The fact that the Government's view was not given is unforgivable because the Government does have a view on it so why does he not give it to the Committee? It is terribly simple. It just is total inefficiency or arrogance. Mr Hoon: On the contrary, as my letter makes clear, the Commission's deadline for response is not until 31 August. The question of transparency and the way in which Council meetings operate is a matter that affects all government departments, and indeed different government departments will face rather different problems depending on the nature of the Council and the way in which different Councils operate. Some Councils are much more formal, in others there is genuine negotiation taking place. Part of the issue in relation to transparency, which this Government have very strongly supported, is that some Council meetings will be less appropriate for formal and complete transparency simply because they are in the nature of a negotiation. Q22 Mr Cash: So why was the Government's view not given? Mr Hoon: Because, as my letter sets out, and I apologise for reading it at the Committee, "As I am sure you will appreciate, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further before completing a formal consultation exercise involving other government departments and devolved administration from relevant stakeholders", so the Government actually is doing what I would assume the Committee wanted it to do, which is to garner a wide range of opinion amongst those most affected by these decisions. I would have thought the Committee would have approved of that. Q23 Michael Connarty: I think we have the question and the position stated. Before we move on, one question to answer that I hope will be simple is this. Can we have your assurance that this Committee will be alerted in good time about any proposal for a civilian ESDP mission to Kosovo? Mr Hoon: I hope so. Q24 Michael Connarty: It is dependent on some other department, is it? Mr Hoon: It is not dependent --- well, it is actually dependent on some other department, but what I am saying is that, providing I have a text that is agreed and in its final form that I can communicate to the Committee in due time, I will undertake to do that. Q25 Jim Dobbin: Before we move on, could we agree that the list of problems and difficulties that we perceive here is offered to the Department so that they can have a look at it? Otherwise we will be going through this list again. Mr Hoon: I would be grateful for that. Q26 Michael Connarty: I would suggest that that would be useful and I would also suggest we take it further and that our Clerks and our advisers would enlarge on what is a cryptic note for us because we have already heard these things verbally before the Committee. Mr Hoon: Michael, I would be grateful for that. It would be extremely helpful, extremely constructive, and it would allow me then to go back to the department. I assure you, Michael, and other members of the Committee, that if there are problems in the department and the department are not behaving properly I will undertake both to the Committee and to my department to make sure that these issues are sorted, but I cannot do that without having chapter and verse. Michael Connarty: That is fine. Can we move on to the larger issue of the scrutiny of European business in the longer term future? Q27 Jim Dobbin: This is really a follow-up to what we have just been through. You are wearing a different hat now. You were Leader of the House when we were looking at improving the scrutiny system here and we had an away-day and there was a report from the Modernisation Committee and you actually told us yourself at that time, but nothing much has happened since then, and, of course, we are going on working the system as we have done in the past. I am just wondering if you wanted to comment on that, particularly looking at the possibility of maybe a select committee style system on some of the other issues that we raised at the time and trying to involve Members of both Houses and MEPs, et cetera, in the whole process. Mr Hoon: I was extremely grateful, as you say, Jim, wearing a different hat, for the very positive way in which the Committee responded to the suggestions I made in the course of that discussion, and personally I remain of the opinion that there are improvements that could be made to the process of European scrutiny. Obviously, that now depends on other people continuing their debate, and I am sure the Committee will have its own views as to how to take it forward. For example, and I think it is consistent with what has been said already, the proposal by the Commission to send proposals for legislation direct to national parliaments is something that I both personally strongly supported as well as the Government and I think that will also help reduce the amount of time taken inside the Government sometimes to prepare a Government response before it is communicated to Parliament. This process, as I think we discussed on that occasion, could proceed at the same time. I see no reason why national parliaments should not be engaged earlier in the process and I think that is consistent with the right emphasis today on getting more participation from national Members of Parliament. Q28 Mr Borrow: I know, Minister, it is not your direct responsibility and, of course, it was your responsibility as Leader of the House, but in your current position have you had further time to reflect on some of those proposals and any thoughts past some of the thoughts you had several months ago when we talked? Mr Hoon: As I said in answer to Jim's question, I have not changed my own personal views on that. Clearly there is a Government position on these questions that now depends on someone else to carry forward, but my personal thinking remains exactly as it was. In some ways, coming back to this job only emphasises my view of the need for some improvements in the scrutiny process. I say that not only from the perspective of the House of Commons but also from the perspective of Government. I think it helps Government to have a clearer view of legislative proposals from Members of Parliament. Q29 Mr Borrow: One of the things that we are very conscious of is that the existing system has drifted for over a year since the last election and there is no sign of any movement to streamline, modernise, strengthen the system. Our impression is very much that it has been put on the back burner as far as the Government is concerned and we could well end up with what many of us would think was an unsatisfactory system of scrutiny. Mr Hoon: From my perspective I do not agree that the Government put it on the back burner. There is both, as I think Jim referred to, an outstanding Modernisation Committee report and some further discussions that have taken place within Government. I keep coming back to the same mantra, I am afraid, David, which is that it is no longer something for which I am directly responsible, though my personal views have not changed, and I cannot satisfy the Committee about something that I am not in the lead on. Q30 Michael Connarty: Surely, as the Minister for Europe, the Government is interested in your views on what would raise the profile of Europe, particularly given that there are many issues that should be debated and also publicised about how Europe is beneficially operating for the people of the UK, which obviously does not get in the tabloids or any of the printed media, so along with things like the on average European committee ADPs sitting with MPs and Members of the other House which was very strongly supported, I think, by this Committee and yourself, there are other avenues through which you can still hopefully continue to enthuse the Government about this change regardless of which channels it eventually comes through. Mr Hoon: I think that is a very helpful suggestion and wholly consistent with some of the comments and speeches that I have been making since coming back to this job. Finding ways in which we can highlight what is really happening in the institutions of the European Union at an early stage of the process is extremely good for the Government, I think it is good for Parliament, but, crucially, it is good for the people of this country. Q31 Michael Connarty: Can I impress on you another issue, the Modernisation Committee's suggestion that the Government should offer explanatory memoranda on important Commission consultations ahead of the formal document emerging from the Commission? Could that be looked administratively rather than what seems to be the rather pointless process that we are locked into at the moment? Mr Hoon: But, as I say, my concern remains that these documents do change and can change quite significantly and therefore I really am anxious not to waste the Committee's and other people's time in having a discussion about documents that may not be in their final form. Michael Connarty: We will move on from that topic. We share aspirations on some of that. Can we move on to looking to the future? Q32 Mr Cash: With respect to the question of what is going to happen in January when the Germans take over the Presidency of the Union ----- Mr Hoon: Fireworks possibly? Q33 Mr Cash: It is difficult to know and we would like to find out from you. That is why you are here. Angela Merkel, on 17 November last year, said that the Constitution was going to be brought back on to the agenda. We know that the Austrians have tried to kick-start that and we know there have been some stalled discussions. We know that there is supposed to be a period of reflection for another year. How does that coincide with the apparent statement of the German Presidency? What I am really interested in is whether in fact the Government is prepared to say unequivocally that it is not going to proceed with the European Constitution even though it keeps it on the order paper for the purposes of debate. The European Union Bill ought to be taken off the order paper. Can you explain to me why it is still on and, secondly, can you explain to me what the position of the Government is with regard to the German statement which Angela Merkel made on 17 November? Mr Hoon: I have had the privilege of meeting the German Chancellor on a couple of occasions and, despite that opportunity, I am somewhat reluctant to answer questions on her behalf. I think that the Prime Minister, who appointed me to this position, might be somewhat concern if I extended my responsibilities to speak for the German Government as well as for the British Government. Q34 Mr Cash: Do you know what she thinks? Mr Hoon: I have certainly had discussions with her, yes, and she set out her thinking, as you said, Bill, on a number of occasions, but it is not for me to try and speak for her or for her Government. As far as the question of the Bill is concerned, members of the Committee will know full well that 15 countries, including Germany, have ratified the treaty. There is a discussion which Bill has generously referred to about the way forward. There is no agreed way forward at the present time, which is why in the course of the Austrian Presidency it was decided to extend the period of reflection for a further 12 months. We are reflecting, but we are thinking about the way forward. Q35 Mr Cash: But the Prime Minister has specifically stated in reply to me that it will not be possible to implement the treaty as it is now set out in the document which was presented to the House of Commons to be implemented through the European Union Bill. You cannot implement part of a treaty, so why not simply take the Bill off the order paper? The Prime Minister has admitted that he cannot follow it through, so what is the purpose? Mr Hoon: If you will forgive me for saying this, Bill, I think that is a slightly partial paraphrase of what the Prime Minister actually said. Q36 Mr Cash: I do not agree with that because the Prime Minister knows and you know that you cannot, without reform, actually carry forward the discussions on that treaty. Everybody in Europe knows it. You had two referenda against you, so basically all the 15 that you referred to are completely hog-tied. Mr Hoon: Bill, you are now extending my responsibilities to France and the Netherlands and I have to say that I equally resist speaking on their behalf. Q37 Mr Cash: So you are not going to answer my question. That is what it boils down to. Mr Hoon: I think the question is clear and I have answered the question in the way which I think accords with the reality of the situation, which is that there is a constitutional treaty. Bill, absolutely rightly, has pointed out that in two countries there have been referenda which have not approved ratification. A number of other countries, and my maths always fails me at this point, have still to ratify, but it equally is the case that 15 countries have ratified and one is going to ratify, I think, in September. Q38 Mr Cash: Finally, is the Government still in favour of the existing European constitutional treaty which was presented to Parliament? Mr Hoon: It is clear from the difficulties that we have seen that it is necessary for us to have further discussions in order to find an agreed way ahead. It is not for one country or two countries or any sub-set of the existing 25 Member States to decide on the way forward. This has to be done collectively and I would have thought one of the things the Committee would be looking for is that it has to be done by unanimity because that is the basis upon which treaties are changed and that is what we are seeking to do. Q39 Nia Griffith: You have long experience of trying to enthuse the public about Europe and I can well appreciate why we have to have a cooling-off period in the aftermath of those referenda in France and the Netherlands, but are we not in danger of just letting the public see Europe as a talking shop once again? I am sure you have sat through the philosophical discourses by other Member States on Europe and the ambitions and values of Europe. The question is really in what practical way can we move forward on this? We have got a certain number of states having ratified a constitution. We have obviously got resistance from others. What is the practical way forward other than simply talking and talking? Mr Hoon: I absolutely agree with that point of view. There is too much discussion about sometimes rather obscure, abstract, constitutional provisions which, as a former constitutional lawyer, I might enjoy more than most people, but I recognise there is a limit even to my enjoyment of that. What is important is that we look at what the European Union does day to day to deliver practical benefits to the people of the European. I set out in a speech a few weeks ago what I thought was a new and challenging agenda for the European Union based on the Hampton Court Conclusions, repeated in the Conclusions of the Austrian Presidency, set out very fairly, I thought, in a Commission communication on a citizens' agenda for Europe emphasising the practical benefits that flow from being part of this very large single market that has legislative capacity to deal with a range of issues that we face in the 21st century. I think it is vitally important that we emphasise that practical agenda rather than perhaps concentrating too much on the detail of constitutional change. Q40 Angus Robertson: Can I support you in what you are saying there, Minister, but it does concern me somewhat? Visiting other EU countries and speaking with other parliamentarian colleagues or MEP colleagues, everybody is getting frightfully excited about one particular aspect or another of constitutional theory or what was part of the draft Constitution, and now we are supposed to be in a period of reflection and one would hope that that would involve the public, citizens, and I see absolutely no sign of that whatsoever. What ideas do you have with your responsibilities as Minister for Europe, and I know you have recently made a speech and that is a way of setting out your stall, about what can be practically done to have a meaningful period of reflection which is not just elites or European anoraks talking to each other? Mr Hoon: I very much agree with that and I hope I can enlist the support and enthusiasm of the Committee in encouraging a debate about the benefits that flow from membership of the European Union. I think it is something that has been neglected in this country and I think we need to do more to look at what it means to individual citizens to be part of this larger market, what it means in terms of the issues that frankly enthuse people in the 21st century, issues concerned with environmental protection and climate change and giving help to the developing world, energy security, a whole range of questions that frankly can only effectively be tackled multinationally. That is not to say that we do not need strong positions by a UK Government on those issues but they can only be truly effective if they complement the decisions taken as well through the European Union. It is that agenda that I think is enormously important, but I agree: we have not done enough to discuss that, and certainly I will try and do more. Q41 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: The published Conclusions to the Brussels Summit last month say in paragraph 43 that despite the two unfavourable referendum results ratification is proceeding in a number of other Member States. It says, "It is hoped that this process will be completed in line with the Conclusions of June 2005", so the British Government, which of course by definition agreed these Conclusions, is therefore pleased and supports this continuing ratification process, which is perhaps not surprising because, of course, the Prime Minister has signed the Constitution and therefore obviously still wants it to come into effect. In justifying this attitude the Conclusions also say, "Citizens remain committed to the European Project". What is your understanding of that phrase "the European Project" and what evidence do you have that citizens remain committed to it? Mr Hoon: The process that we joined in 1973 on 1 January to build a larger, more effective European Union is under way and is continuing and it is something which broadly speaking attracts support right across the Member States. There is no doubt that since 1 January 1973 there has been enormous change, largely for the better, it seems to me, in terms of the expansion of the European Union to include states that were at that time undemocratic, unfree and part of a malign international organisation. It is a remarkable change in the nature of the political geography of Europe and one that I am sure all of us welcome. Q42 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: That is all you understand by the European Project? Mr Hoon: Well, I mean ----- Q43 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Can I just finish because it is a question? That is an attitude dating from more than 30 years ago that justifies everything that follows from it. On such an insubstantial foundation do you really think you can erect this support for continuing ratification of a treaty which brings in a constitution? Have you nothing better to say about the European Project? Mr Hoon: If you have finished then I will know what question ----- Q44 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I have finished my question. Now you can start your answer. Mr Hoon: You are very kind. Q45 Michael Connarty: I think I am chairing the Committee, Mr Heathcoat-Amory. Mr Hoon: I do have some difficulty in recognising the description of the end of the Warsaw Pact, the restoration of democracy to a number of countries, the establishment of democracy for the first time, recognition of the rule of law, a vigorous engagement in a market economy by a number of countries which in 1973 had no conception of any of that possibility, but I accept that perhaps David does not share my view of the importance of these kinds of changes. Perhaps David would have preferred to see those countries remain isolated and totalitarian. I think it is an enormous achievement and it is an achievement that the European Union can share in because those countries, once they were free from the Warsaw Pact, once they became independent, were then given a clear focus, a clear direction. They wanted to participate in the European Project. They wanted to change their own laws and practices to allow them to become members of the European Union. They made enormous efforts to do that and countries like Romania and Bulgaria continue to do so. It is an enormous achievement for the European Union and hardly one that I would describe as insubstantial. On top of that, of course, ----- Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Mr Connarty, ----- Q46 Michael Connarty: No. I think we have ----- Mr Hoon: I can go on, Michael. If David is going to criticise me for not setting it out in detail I will be delighted to set it out in detail. Q47 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: You have not answered my question. Mr Hoon: It may take me some little time. If David insists on ----- Q48 Michael Connarty: Can I ----- Mr Hoon: I am sorry, Michael. If David insists on making these carping criticisms on the basis of my trying to answer his questions then I do not think it is very reasonable. Michael Connarty: I think we should move on because it is unfortunate we sometimes do stray mostly over the line ----- Mr Heathcoat-Amory: It is not an answer. Michael Connarty: ----- and that is something we do have to impose some self-discipline on. Mr Cash: On a point of order ----- Michael Connarty: People have different views. I do not think there is a point of order, Mr Cash. I think we need to move on. People can express these views and hold these views. Can I just say ----- Mr Heathcoat-Amory: It is not a view; it is a question. Michael Connarty: Can I just say to the Minister that the view he is expressing probably finds echo in most of the members of this Committee. We all understand people have different views and different assessments of what the European Union has done or has not done and what it is based upon. You have expressed your view. Mr Heathcoat-Amory in his question expressed clearly his view and I consider that it is time to move on to other topics. Mr Cash: Could I, on a point of order ----- Michael Connarty: There is not a point of order, Mr Cash. Mr Cash: There is a point of order, if I just may. It is that ----- Michael Connarty: No. We are going to move on to question 24. Mr Cash: Why am I not allowed to raise a point of order? Michael Connarty: We would have to meet in private and send the public out. Do you really wish to do this? Mr Cash: Is it simpler to ask a very simple question that applies to something you said? Michael Connarty: No. Mr Cash: The Euro barometer poll ----- Michael Connarty: Mr Cash, I am moving on to another section of our business. Mr Cash: The Euro barometer poll completely contradicts what you and the Minister have just said. Michael Connarty: You can ask to be called because you wish to ask a question on another matter. Q49 Mr Cash: All right. In the context of the passerelle, which is police and judicial co-operation on criminal matters, it is intended to, and the Government has expressed a view that it wants to, move to Qualified Majority Voting. That would transfer action on visas, asylum and immigration away from intergovernmental to Qualified Majority Voting, and it would give the right of co-decision to the European Parliament and it would give the European Court of Justice jurisdiction over police and judicial co-operation. I am quite sure the Minister in all seriousness appreciates that this would be a major step. Can he please explain why it is that they are intending to do this given the fact that at the moment, with unanimity, we can actually govern ourselves in these areas within a general framework of the European Union (although I might not have agreed with the things that have already been passed in this respect), but to allow the matters in question to be resolved by Qualified Majority Vote takes us into dealing with terrorism, deportation; it takes us into the whole range of matters within Title IV of the EC Treaty. Will the Minister please, instead of looking puzzled because he has no reason to do so; he knows what I am driving at, clearly state why it is that this is being proposed and precisely whether the Government is prepared to go down that route? Mr Hoon: The reason I am looking puzzled, Bill, is that you have started your question with a premise which you just appear to have contradicted by your conclusion, because the Government have not taken any decisions in this area, as your conclusion indicated but you began by saying that we had. That was the cause of my puzzlement. I was just hoping that we could start with an agreed factual basis, and if I set out the factual basis I hope we can agree that because ----- Mr Cash: It is in the European Constitution. Q50 Michael Connarty: Mr Cash, can we hear the answer? Mr Hoon: The position is this, that on 28 June the Commission issued a communication which they called "Implementing the Hague Programme: The Way Forward", which included the very first formal proposal on the passerelle clause. As Bill has made clear, the passerelle clause is already in existing treaties, so there is no reason why, in appropriate cases, it could not be used as a matter of law. The Government are looking at whether there are advantages for the United Kingdom in using those existing treaty arrangements but have so far not reached any clear conclusion, but I would imply mention that we do benefit and have practically benefited from Government co-operation in this area. One of the suspects from last year's bomb on 21 July was extradited from Italy to the United Kingdom in 42 days rather than the normal 15 months simply because of the existence of what was known as a European arrest warrant, and therefore there may be areas where we judge it is in the interests of the United Kingdom to have further and better co-operation in this area, but we have not reached that conclusion yet and it is something, obviously, that I would welcome the views of this Committee and of Parliament on. Q51 Mr Cash: Do you think this is a matter for national parliaments? Mr Hoon: Just let me finish. It is something that we obviously do want to discuss, but the law is clear. This possibility already exists in the treaty. It has been agreed unanimously by Member States in the past and therefore it is something that is available should we decide it is in the interests of the United Kingdom to pursue. We have not reached that view yet. Q52 Mr Cash: But, answering my question specifically, do you agree that these are matters which are at present and should remain, must remain, as a matter of national sovereignty for national parliaments? Mr Hoon: I have made it clear that there are circumstances already where the scope for greater co-operation has benefited the United Kingdom. If we judge that there were in narrow and defined areas further benefits for the UK we would not hesitate in using those benefits in the interests of the security of the citizens of the United Kingdom. We would be failing in our duty if we did not do that. Q53 Angus Robertson: To be fair, Minister, whether one is for or more sceptical about the use of the passerelle clause, I think we need to be clear that we are not talking about the possibility of a narrow range of justice and home affairs matters being affected by the passerelle clause. When we visited Finland Finnish parliamentarians and the Finnish Government were absolutely clear that they wanted the wholesale application of the passerelle clause in the justice and home affairs area, so I think it is important, whether we are for or against that, not to downplay that we might be heading in a direction that is very significant. I would like to ask a specific question which is relevant to the Committee and the way that we do our work. Mr Barroso, in connection with this whole proposal, said that using the passerelle clause and the co-decision process was the only means whereby justice and home affairs proposals could be subject to "proper democratic scrutiny". It would seem to me that he is saying that is a much better standard of scrutiny which can be offered on justice and home affairs, on criminal justice matters, than this Parliament can on the law for England and Wales or the Scottish Parliament can for the criminal law in Scotland. It is a pretty fundamental question as to whether one believes that scrutiny in the justice and home affairs area, which goes to the absolute core of our society, can be scrutinised optimally through co-decision at the European Union level or through the UK Parliament and Scottish Parliament criminal justice matters. It is not now and it is significant, is it not? Mr Hoon: I do not disagree with that. I think it is one of the important factors which would have to be taken into account before any decision was taken under the passerelle to move to a different way of reaching decisions. It would be a factor, the extent to which we believe that there could be proper scrutiny of processes which could conceivably ultimately lead to Qualified Majority Voting in relation to these sensitive areas. I accept that these are significant issues. It is why we have not yet reached a conclusion on a proposal which was only formally made ten days or so ago. Q54 Angus Robertson: Do you agree with Mr Barroso that co-decision is the right mechanism for proper democratic scrutiny or have you not yet come to a view on that? Mr Hoon: That is something we are looking at. Q55 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: If the Government did agree to allow the passerelle clause to transfer police and criminal justice matters over to the main body of the Community Treaty, it would, of course, probably permit majority voting, as has been described, but it would also mean that the Community itself would acquire external competence in these matters. That is to say, matters governing international agreements. Therefore, even if we did not opt-in to the specific measures on a case-by-case matter, we would still find ourselves precluded from signing international agreements on these important areas of policy. Has the Government explored that? Can you tell us if it is of concern and might influence your decision as to whether or not to agree to this? Mr Hoon: Again, I think that is an important factor which has to be taken into account in deciding how to go forward. I have spent the last few days attending a conference on migration issues which are of enormous significance today to the European Union. As I am sure you will be the first to say, David, our external borders of the European Union are only as strong as those in each and every individual Member State. Questions of flows of migrants into the European Union, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and Malta, a very sensitive political issue today, are important issues which deal with the external responsibilities of the European Union. Q56 Michael Connarty: We will have to suspend the Committee. Can I thank the Minister for attending. We had an indication that you may not be able to return after the vote. Mr Hoon: The division is rather earlier than I had anticipated, so I can certainly come back up until 4.30, but I would be in difficulty after 4.30. The Committee suspended from 3.39pm to 3.52pm for a division in the House Q57 Michael Connarty: Mr Hoon, I believe you had the floor before we left. Would you like to continue? Mr Hoon: Before the division I think I was alluding to the balance that has to be struck. Clearly there are significant constitutional issues which affect the way in which decisions in this particularly sensitive area are taken. I think those were pointed out by Mr Robertson earlier. Equally, I think David Heathcoat-Amory does raise a practical question of the extent to which these issues have consequences internationally. I mentioned my attendance at a conference funded largely by the European Commission on migration and the challenge that poses to the European Union and how best we work to try and deal with those questions. Clearly there are security implications as well on the kind of migration that is taking place. All I say is these are all factors which will have to be taken into account as we look at the way forward in relation to the passerelle as far as justice and home affairs is concerned. Q58 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Am I right, though, that if criminal justice and policing matters did go from being intergovernmental to being considered under the mainstream Community Treaty that, in fact, the Community would acquire exclusive competence for these external agreements, not clearly affecting our external border but our very ability to sign things like extradition treaties with the United States, which is a topical issue? Would this possibility be ruled out, as we are advised, if the Community acquired exclusive competence in that way? I am not asking whether you agree but whether I am right because that would seem to be a very, very serious consequence. Mr Hoon: If the Union acquired exclusive competence then I think that conclusion is right. I am not suggesting that it is necessarily the case that these kinds of changes would necessarily lead to that result. Q59 Michael Connarty: Can I ask one small point about the right perception. If the passerelle clause was used and brought in, would the Commission acquire a monopoly to propose legislation? If so, would that be acceptable? Mr Hoon: The process by which legislation is brought forward generally in the European Union is set out and certainly would give the European Commission much greater responsibility in those areas than it presently enjoys, yes. I am not prepared to say that is the only way in which legislation is brought forward because there are now different routes. There is a formal process but the practical way in which legislation is brought forward is much more homogeneous than it was before. Q60 Mr Cash: Can I ask one last question on this which I started out on? Minister, it is to get to the guts of this. There is a real problem here and I expect you really appreciate it. We govern ourselves in this country by passing legislation in Parliament which comes from the voters when they choose Members of Parliament and that forms a government, and then we have parliamentary debates and decisions on hugely important matters to the people of this country. You know that, I know it and we share the concern that it should be right. How on earth would it be possible for a government to agree to transfer the decision-making process on matters relating to this particular issue of judicial and police co-operation with the range that it involves? How can you possibly have a position of taking account of views which might be expressed? Why can you not simply say, "This is something we cannot countenance because it would mean that decisions were taken in these vital areas which would be governed by Qualified Majority Voting and, therefore, we know would not necessarily conform to the views expressed in General Election manifestos"? Mr Hoon: I am not conceding for a moment that the Government have decided to do that. Q61 Mr Cash: You know the point I am making. Mr Hoon: In the interest of academic constitutional debate then the answer is that flows from section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 agreed by Parliament. Q62 Mr Cash: It does not because actually, Minister, if you make a decision in the Council of Ministers by Qualified Majority Voting then under that section, for which we, as a party, would want an override, you would not, we would say that we would disagree with the conclusion which had been arrived at, but you would say, "We will go along with it". My real question, however, is whether you will get to the point of allowing the Council of Ministers to create the situation in which we would be obliged to implement it under that section 2. Mr Hoon: Again, I am not suggesting that we would go along with it. What I am saying is the way in which European Union law is implemented in this country is as a result of the European Communities Act passed by Parliament. Unless and until that Act is repealed, qualified or changed in some way, that is the mechanism by which these issues are passed into our law and has been the case since 1 January 1973. Q63 Mr Cash: You baffle me, Minister, because you are still not answering the simple question. I am saying it would not get to that point if we were to exercise the veto because at the moment it is by unanimity. What I am asking is whether you can conceive of a situation in which your Government, you, as Minister for Europe, and the Prime Minister could agree to take away the sovereign right of the people in this country to decide as to whether or not it should go to the Council of Ministers and be decided by Qualified Majority Voting? Mr Hoon: I had not realised you were asking such a simple question. I have already answered that question, and the answer is we will make a judgment in light of all the factors which the Committee have very helpfully set out today as to whether or not that was in the best interests of the people of the United Kingdom. I have made clear in response to a question from David that I can conceive of circumstances in which there might be a strong argument on security grounds for more effective decision-making in this area. That is a matter which the Government have not yet decided on and have not yet decided to take forward. Q64 Michael Connarty: Before we move on to the next section, can I clarify a fact with you. Is it not a fact that if justice and home affairs matters are transferred to Title IV the Commission will then have the sole right of initiative in JHA European law? Mr Hoon: We have maintained the position where first of all that would obviously have to be decided in the first place by unanimity. We would then have the ability to opt-in to legislation should we choose to do so. There are a number of safeguards available to the United Kingdom as a result of what we have negotiated. Michael Connarty: We will move on to the next section. Mr Hoyle? Mr Hoyle: Something which is dear to your heart, Minister, is Gibraltar. Q65 Michael Connarty: Some of us respect the diligence with which Mr Hoyle pursues the interests of the voters within the EU! Mr Hoon: I have always respected his diligence, Michael. Q66 Mr Hoyle: We are both aware of the ridiculous situation that Gibraltar has faced, whether it is the European Single Sky policy, whether it is a ferry from Algeciras to Gibraltar or whether it is a Royal Navy ship - it was a cruise ship, it is not quite the case at the moment because they are easing the tension - that could not sail from a Spanish port to Gibraltar or from Gibraltar to Spain directly. This is in the face of EU rules, it is totally in breach of all agreements, and we all know, and I have been on the Committee, that all the time we have draft Community legislation on aviation matters, which continues to come before us, there is always a provision suspending its application to Gibraltar. This is absolutely outrageous. This is Spain's bully-boy tactics. I cannot understand why it is allowed to continue. I know you have been in very good talks and that we have almost reached agreement, but the question still is why on earth is Spain allowed to abuse its position and the UK Government are doing nothing about it to fight its corner with the EU? Mr Hoon: Michael, Lindsay tabled an extremely astute question the other day about relations between the UK, Spain and Gibraltar. I hope I have set out in some considerable detail a comprehensive answer to that question which I think was warmly received both in Gibraltar and Spain. Q67 Mr Hoyle: Absolutely. Mr Hoon: I hope Lindsay will accept that answer from me because it was so well received and provides a platform from which a number of very practical discussions can now be taken forward. I believe those discussions to be in the interests of the people of Gibraltar as well as in the interests of the people of Spain. If that progress can be continued through the result of excellent work by officials in the Foreign Office and co-operation with the people of Gibraltar and Spain, I do think there is an opportunity for creating a much better situation in Gibraltar and Spain. Therefore, if you will forgive me, Michael, I will not follow Lindsay's rhetoric in the direction in which he would like me to go simply because I do believe today we have a better prospect of a sensible understanding of the situation which I hope will make some of those criticisms redundant in the quite near future. Q68 Mr Hoyle: There is a change of heart within Madrid, there is not a change of heart within the regional governments that continue, as you well know, to block easy access in and out of Gibraltar and have abused their position at customs. We still come back to the fact which worries me - and we have got the Chief Minister here at 5 o'clock next door and we will be hearing his views and how he welcomes what you have done so far - and the question still remains, if the talks are not satisfactory, the UK Government still has, and should do, to ensure the rights not only of the people of Gibraltar but that the Single Sky agreement puts travellers from the UK at risk travelling to Gibraltar. I cannot understand how we can allow that to continue if these talks fail or something goes wrong. What can we do to ensure that we still do not get the problem that we have had right along and that is Spain objecting to any agreement which includes Gibraltar? Mr Hoon: I have been to Gibraltar in recent weeks, therefore I was able to continue my long and binding friendship with Peter Caruana who has done a tremendous job on behalf of the people of Gibraltar. We have been involved in many conversations in the course of the last few weeks. The issue which you raised, Lindsay, is part of an issue that we are looking to try and improve the situation. We are still slightly short of an agreement. If you will forgive me, I do not judge, given the importance of these discussions, that it would help anyone for me to comment directly on the question at this point. All I can say is there is real progress. The question which I answered that you tabled demonstrates that progress. I hope that when I come back, if I have the opportunity, Chairman, to do so, I will be able to report on a very positive conclusion of the discussion we have been having. There has been real progress and at this stage I do not want to jeopardise that progress by responding directly to the points which Lindsay raises. Q69 Mr Hoyle: If it did go ahead, would you review the situation where Gibraltar has been excluded? Mr Hoon: I am not prepared to contemplate failure at this stage. Q70 Mr Hoyle: It is not a failure, it is just a matter of would you review it? Mr Hoon: What I am saying is I believe we have an opportunity to change the nature of the relationship for all time between Spain and Gibraltar. That is such a prize that I think many things can then flow from an easier relationship and that is so important, therefore many of the things you are raising as practical problems I hope can be resolved in the light of that better relationship. Mr Hoyle: A question to Michael then. Would you ensure if something did go wrong that we will have an early meeting with the Minister in order to discuss Gibraltar? Michael Connarty: I am sure the Minister will communicate what he hopes will be his impending success as soon as it is in writing. Can we move on to the question of enlargement. Q71 Mr Borrow: Minister, can you say a few words about the future enlargement of the EU and the way you see things developing? In particular, there is concern in respect of the agreed accession of Bulgaria and Romania which is likely to go ahead irrespective of whether or not both countries have reached European standards on issues such as criminal justice because decisions have already been set in train. I would like you to comment specifically on that, but perhaps you might also say a few words about the general position. Mr Hoon: As far as the general position of enlargement is concerned, the United Kingdom continues to strongly support enlargement. We believe that it has been of great benefit to Europe and not only to the countries that have joined but also to existing Member States to have a larger market in which to do business and to have countries which respect human rights, democracy and the rule of law as members. I do not entirely agree, David, that Bulgaria and Romania will go in irrespective because there is a further report which we expect from the European Commission. They produced a report in May setting out some concerns they had about progress in a number of areas, different for each country but roughly in the area of justice and dealing particularly with organised crime. Obviously the Commission will be looking at those matters again before they produce their further report which will come to Council, I anticipate, in October. It is not irrespective, it is a rigorous process which the Commission goes through. The United Kingdom will obviously want to see satisfactory answers in the further report from the European Commission in the light of the criticisms that were made in the previous assessment. Q72 Michael Connarty: I think the point being made by Mr Borrow is the longest they can be prevented from entering is 18 months because they will come in in 2008 regardless. That is the point. It is not whether they will come in in January of 2007, but if they still appear not to be up to the acceptable standard they will come in in 2008. Mr Hoon: All I am doing is emphasising what is a rigorous process, a process I have been involved in in different countries in various ministerial capacities and even before that other capacities. There is a determined effort by the European Commission to look across the range of government activities to ensure that candidate countries satisfy the rules and requirements of membership of the European Union. If something was found to be seriously amiss, it is not necessarily the case, there is still an emergency arrangement that could prevent even 2008 being the date for accession. I do not believe that will happen. This is not a process which proceeds irrespective of what happens as the Commission look at the various dossiers which they have to examine. Therefore, what we will be looking for is both a sense that the Commission have conducted that examination rigorously and have provided proper safeguards for existing Member States to the effect that both Bulgaria and Romania have met the standards which are required. Q73 Mr Borrow: One of the concerns that some of us would have is that however rigorous the Commission may be in terms of their processes, eventually it is a matter for the Member States to make the decision. When the ten came into the EU a couple of years ago, not all of the entry criteria were met by all ten countries, there was a bit of horse trading that went on in order to ensure that went through. I think certainly my concern would be if you have got a system in place supposedly that is independent and rigorous before a country can gain entry then it is important that Member States, as well as the Commission, operate that process rigorously and do not allow political horse trading to subvert the rigorousness of that system itself. Mr Hoon: I agree. Q74 Mr Heathcoat-Amory Because no-one ever dares say "no" to enlargement, the EU has invented this new jargon about absorption capacity. I notice from the Brussels Conclusions again that the Commission is to do a report on absorption capacity which will take into account: "...the issue of present and future perception of enlargement by citizens". In other words, public opinion is now going to drive this. Given that a large majority is against Turkey joining in Austria and France, both of which have been promised referendums, is this not another example of politicians steaming ahead with ideas and leaving the public way behind and, therefore, there is a terrible disillusionment in Turkey in store when they are going to be blocked by using this absorption capacity idea? Does that worry the British Government given the view that Turkey's accession is desirable? Mr Hoon: The phrase "absorption capacity" has been around for quite a number of years, I think as long ago as 1999 it was first used in EU text, but I would be willing to check that. It is not a new idea or a new concept. Indeed, I am sure members of the Committee will accept that as a matter of common sense Member States have to consider whether it is possible for the existing members of the European Union to absorb new Member States. That is part of a consideration which already takes place as the various dossiers are examined. It is not the case that there is a specific agreement as to what absorption capacity will mean, and that is precisely why there is to be a further discussion about it in December and why a paper will be produced by the European Commission. These are matters which have to be discussed. In terms of public opinion, France has decided, for the future at any rate, that the question of membership would be subject to a referendum and, therefore, there is a direct test of public opinion in France for that purpose. That is not to say that every country will be expected to follow France as an example. Q75 Jim Dobbin: On the Turkish accession, the Turkish issue, and the tripartite relationship between the Greek Cypriots, the Turkish Cypriots' co-operation and Turkey itself, where does the problem lie? Who is at fault here? What is the relationship like? Mr Hoon: Sorry, can you repeat that? Q76 Jim Dobbin: With the possibility of Turkey coming in as part of enlargement, these are three neighbours, who is being obstreperous or difficult? Mr Hoon: No-one at the moment. Q77 Michael Connarty: Do you wish to expand on that? Mr Hoon: I attended the most recent General Affairs Council Meeting where the first chapter of the negotiations in relation to Turkey's accession was both opened and closed and demonstrated that the process is underway. I accept that there are some rather more difficult issues than science and technology in our way in the future, but I think opening accession negotiations with Turkey last September was a great success for the European Union. I think it is wholly consistent with long-standing British foreign policy and therefore something I have strongly welcomed and continue to do so. I am not suggesting that there will not be difficulties, there always are difficulties in these discussions which we will have to overcome, but I am not yet anticipating what they are. Q78 Nia Griffith: There are a couple of issues about Turkey. Obviously when we were there we were very impressed by the economic progress and their enthusiasm, but there still seemed to be a stubborn reluctance to recognise the need for improvement in certain areas, obviously human rights being the main area. How do you see negotiations proceeding? There was a feeling that they were being picked on and that we were making the rules up especially for them and this love of the constitution which they copied from the Italians in 1924. How do you see progress with dialogue going forward? Mr Hoon: It will be the same process that we were discussing earlier in relation to Romania or Bulgaria. There will be a range of tests - I cannot use a better word - and respect for human rights and the rule of law will be a key aspect of that. It is something which, as we have demonstrated very recently, the European Union takes very seriously and will apply rigorously. All I would say is we started this process, there are going to be issues that we will have to discuss directly with Turkey, and I am sure there will be areas where Turkey will find it difficult. All candidate countries find it difficult to move their standards to those of the European Union. Having said that, I think the objective ultimately of Turkish accession to the European Union is an important one strategically, economically, and I think politically. With a country which has a large Muslim population, sees itself as being Western and sees its institution as being secular, I think the prospect of Turkish accession is something we should consider very carefully. There are a number of problems that if for whatever reason we fail ultimately I think it will make the position very difficult for the European Union and, therefore, is why successive governments of the United Kingdom have supported the Turkish accession. Q79 Mr David: Obviously Turkey's accession, if it comes about, is ten, 15 years from now, possibly more, and it is difficult to predict how things are going to go exactly. Can I urge the Minister to think aloud? Bearing in mind that the Enlargement Commission has speculated that there might be a possibility at some time in the future, when it comes to the sensitive issue of the free movement of labour, that some sort of special arrangement could be made regarding Turkey and that would be quite an element of the EU, is that something which you think could be debated and discussed at some point in the future? Mr Hoon: First of all, I would not want any suggestion of silence on my part to suggest that I am agreeing to your timetable, so I do not think it is sensible at this stage at the start of negotiations to be putting a timetable upon them. What we have always done in relation to the process of opening our market is look at the best interests of the British economy at the time as well as obviously whatever legal obligations we have. The question of accession has been separate from the process by which we have opened up our labour market. If you invited me to comment on it, I would say that would remain the case with all new countries because there is a separate process to resolve those issues. Q80 Michael Connarty: Can I ask one final related question on the ongoing macro resolution to the Cyprus dilemma. Since it was the Greek Cypriots, some would say with the encouragement of the Greek Government and Greek politicians, who rejected the Annan Plan, do you think it is correct that the Council, as I understand, implies that Turkey is the party who is undermining good neighbourhood relations in their attitude to shipping and other matters? Mr Hoon: I do not think that is the Council's position. In a sense, I was alluding to the very point that you are making when I was talking about the strategic significance of Turkey. I believe Turkey has exercised its responsibilities in this area with commendable success in recent times. They have faced a number of very difficult decisions, and I believe they have taken decisions which perhaps previous Turkish Governments might not have taken. Therefore, I think they are to be congratulated about their strength of purpose. There are going to be, as I have made clear, issues which will be difficult for Turkey, as always is the case for candidate countries. I do not want to anticipate what they are because I think those are issues that we will have to resolve nearer the time. Q81 Michael Connarty: Can I thank you, Minister, for the time you have given us. It has been very lengthy. I can assure you, I am taking a number of sections out of the matters of interest which you had expressed before you came for questions, so we still have much to work on. I think everyone here is willing, regardless of their conclusions on the purpose or even the lack of purpose of the EU, to work with you. We hope we will see you back here again and again. Mr Hoon: I am extremely grateful, not least because it is the first time I have appeared in front of a committee which has finished early. I am grateful to you. Michael Connarty: Thank you very much. |