Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence


Letter from Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, Minister of State for Europe, to the Chairman of the Committee

  Following Douglas Alexander's Evidence Session before the Committee on Wednesday 3 May, he promised to follow up in writing on the following issues. I am responding as his successor as Minister for Europe.

TITLES OF EU OVERSEAS REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR RESIDENCES

  Douglas Alexander's statement to the Committee that these individuals are not Ambassadors, but representatives of the European Commission, was correct. The term "Ambassador" has never been correct terminology, although mention of "EU Ambassadors" is common outside the Union when talking about a group of Ambassadors belonging to individual Member States. While incorrect references sometimes occur, the important issue is that neither Commission representatives nor Commission offices can represent Member States.

  On the question of EU representatives' residences overseas, the UK, with other EU Member States through the Council of Ministers, exercises significant influence on the establishment of the EC budget at the beginning of each financial period. It is from this budget that offices and residences of the Commission overseas are funded. Parliament is also given the chance to scrutinise the Government's position on the draft EC budget before its adoption in Brussels. I shall write separately with the information you requested on the residences of Commission representatives in Moscow, Washington, Tokyo and Addis Ababa.[7]

ARTICLE 308 OF THE TEC

  John Maples MP asked the Government to clarify a number of issues relating to Article 308 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community. Recourse to Article 308 as the legal base for action is subject to two conditions: first the action must be necessary to attain one of the objectives of the Community in the course of the operation of the common market; and, second, there must be no other specific legal base which confers on the Community the powers to carry out the action concerned.

  In practice, the phrase "in the course of the operation of the common market" has been interpreted broadly by the European Court of Justice, in the sense that the proposed action must come within the general framework of the EC Treaty.

  Article 308 does not therefore require that every proposal using it as a legal basis should relate in a narrow and restrictive sense to the functioning of the internal market.

  In keeping with this approach there has, in recent years, been a trend towards using Article 308 for measures on general external matters and some institutional and financial matters. Some examples are as follows:

    —  In 1981, a Regulation to grant exceptional food aid to the least developed countries (Council Regulation (EEC) No 3723/81 of 21 December 1981);

    —  In 1983, a Regulation to introduce an exceptional Community measure to promote urban renewal in Northern Ireland (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1739/83 of 21 June 1983);

    —  In 1994, a Regulation to set up a Translation Centre for bodies of the European Union. (Council Regulation (EC) No 2965/94 of 28 November 1994);

    —  In 1996, a Regulation to provide assistance to economic reform and recovery in the New Independent States and Mongolia (Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 1279/96 of 25 June 1996);

    —  In 2000, a Regulation on support for the United Nations interim Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OHR) (Council Regulation (EC) No 1080/2000 of 22 May 2000); and

    —  In 2001, a Regulation creating a rapid-reaction mechanism (Council Regulation (EC) No 381/2001).

  Article 308 is the legal base for the Fundamental Rights Agency and the Government and all other Member States are clear that this is the appropriate legal base. As noted above, Article 308 provides the Council with the means to attain the objectives of the Community if the Treaty has not provided the necessary powers. While ensuring respect for fundamental rights is not specifically listed as a Community objective in Articles 2 and 3 TEC, the European Court of Justice has found that this is a condition for the lawfulness of Community acts, and thus it forms an underlying or implied objective of the Community.

POSITION OF ROMANIA AND BULGARIA REGARDING ACCESSION NEGOTIATIONS

  In addition to the super safeguard clause, the Accession Treaty lists three provisions which allow the EU to remedy difficulties encountered as a result of accession (Articles 36-38): a general economic safeguard clause; a specific internal market safeguard clause; and a justice and home affairs safeguard clause. These safeguards were included in the Accession Treaty for the new member states that joined in 2004, but were never activated.

  The general economic safeguard clause is designed to deal with adjustment difficulties experienced in a particular economic sector or area following the entry of a new member state into the internal market. This would normally relate to sudden strong competitive pressure in a product market. During the three years following accession, a new member state may apply for authorisation to take protective measures while adjusting its economy to the pressures of the internal market, and an old member state may apply for authorisation to take protective measures with regard to a new member state.

  The internal market safeguard clause may be applied in the first three years if a new member state has not met commitments it made in the accession negotiations, or the functioning of the internal market is under serious threat. It covers the area of the four freedoms and includes sectors such as competition, energy, transport, telecommunication, agriculture and consumer and health protection—including food safety. Measures are taken on a case-by-case basis. They may be decided before accession, to be applicable as from accession, and they may be extended as long as the situation is not remedied.

  The justice and home affairs safeguard clause may be applied during the first three years after accession if there are risks of serious shortcomings in the way a new member state has transposed or implemented EU rules on mutual recognition in criminal law or civil matters. They may also be applicable beyond that date if the situation is still not remedied.

AIR LINKS WITH NORTHERN CYPRUS

  The UK and the Republic of Cyprus are both contracting States to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, commonly referred to as the Chicago Convention. Article 10 of the Chicago Convention provides for each contracting State to designate the airports at which international civil flights may arrive and depart for the purposes of customs and other examinations. Under Article 68, contracting States may designate the routes to be followed by international civil flights and the airports they may use.

  Article 10 further provides for the publication of the details of designated airports by the contracting State and the transmission of these details to the International Civil Aviation Organisation which may in turn pass them on to other contracting States.

  The Republic of Cyprus has never designated Ercan as an airport for these purposes. We do not understand safety to be the principle obstacle to this. We already have an interest in the safety of Ercan airport given the large numbers of British tourists flying into it via Turkey. Inspections indicate safety standards at the airport are satisfactory.

  The circumstances under which non-state entities, or a contracting State which is in effective control of territory over which it has no sovereignty, may be competent to designate an airport for these purposes have not been comprehensively put to the test.

GAZA AND THE WEST BANK

  We regret that Quartet Special Envoy for Disengagement, James Wolfensohn, was unable to continue his excellent work. He played a significant role in several key areas. He worked extremely hard to ensure that Israeli disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank delivered results for the Palestinian people. He was instrumental in securing the 15 November Agreement on Movement and Access. He worked with both parties to help build the Palestinian economy. We commend his efforts.

  Secure and reliable links between Gaza and the West Bank are crucial for the success of the Palestinian economy. Dr Howells has taken a close interest in this. Sir John Stanley is right that there is a strong case for constructing a road link between Gaza and the West Bank. The European Commission, USAID and the World Bank are scoping the prospects for doing this, along with the various alternatives, such as a rail link and/or tunnel. A safe and permanent connection between Gaza and the West Bank will make a lasting impact on the prospects for a viable Palestinian state. We are concerned that the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs has reported an increase in the number of obstacles to movement in the West Bank and that the deadlines for the introduction of bus convoys by 15 December 2005 and truck convoys by 15 January 2006 were missed.

  We continue to urge Israel and President Abbas, bilaterally and through the Quartet, to work on the Gaza-West Bank link and other issues as set out in the 15 November Movement and Access Agreement relating to the Gaza Strip. This includes Gaza/Israel crossing points; freedom of movement in the West Bank; and the construction of an airport and seaport in Gaza.

  The Committee has also written asking for two further written answers:

TREATY CHANGE

  David Heathcoat-Amory asked about the Government's attitude towards modifying, amending or changing existing treaties in order to bring in parts of the Constitutional Treaty. Douglas Alexander made clear our views when he addressed the Committee on 3 May, that there is no such proposal under discussion with partners. As the former Foreign Secretary said "There is no plan, proposal or intention to slip elements of the Constitution through the back door." (Commons Debate, 6 June, Hansard Col 1000). Douglas Alexander told the Committee on 3 May, "We could contemplate non-treaty change, incremental improvements of the rules".

  It would clearly be impractical to rule out all future treaty changes simply on the basis that similar provisions exist in the Constitutional Treaty. Over time, much procedural change has taken place in the EU, some of which, such as the new arrangements for transparency of the Council of Ministers agreed under the UK Presidency, has not required Treaty change; an example of change which did require Treaty change was the extension of QMV in the Maastricht Treaty. If further such change could make the EU more effective, we would not rule it out automatically, but we would look carefully at the possible benefits to the UK on a case by case basis.

EUROPEAN FOUNDATION FOR DEMOCRACY

  A reply from the Foreign Secretary to Denis MacShane regarding the latter's question in the House of Commons on a European Foundation for Democracy (27 March 2006, col 561) has not yet been issued but will be shortly. I will ensure that a copy of the correspondence is forwarded to the Clerk of the Committee.[8]

  You asked that notes be provided on topics the Committee was unable to reach due to time constraints (the European Neighbourhood Policy, Ukraine, Belarus, security of energy supplies and EU monitoring at Rafah). These are provided at Annex A.

Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, Minister of State for Europe

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

22 May 2006

Annex A

EUROPEAN NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY (ENP)

  The ENP covers both the EU's eastern and southern neighbours. The UK Government supports the ENP as a means of encouraging political and economic reform in countries that wish to move closer to European standards. Action Plans for the first wave of countries (Ukraine, Moldova, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Tunisia, Morocco and Jordan) are now being implemented. The Action Plans identify areas for reform linked to closer co-operation with the EU. The first formal review of Action Plans for Moldova and Ukraine will take place this year. Action plans for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Egypt and Lebanon are now being negotiated and we hope these will be completed as quickly as possible.

UKRAINE

  An interim report in late November 2005 showed that Ukraine was making good progress under its ENP Action Plan. Since then it has conducted largely free and fair parliamentary elections (as recognised by the OSCE's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights which monitored them) and entrenched media freedoms— both priorities under the Action Plan.

  The 26 March parliamentary election in Ukraine returned a majority for the pro-reform "Orange" parties and cut the number of parties represented in the new parliament to just five. However, President Yushchenko's Our Ukraine Party came third behind that of his former Prime Minister, Yuli Tymoshenko. Victor Yanukovych's Party of the Regions came first in the popular vote with 33%, but lost ground in its eastern heartlands. Coalition negotiations are currently under way between Our Ukraine, Blok Yulia Tymoshenko and the Socialists and are focussed on negotiating a government programme as mandated by the revised constitution.

  The UK remains strongly supportive of political and economic reform and the Prime Minister sent a letter to Yushchenko in March congratulating him on Ukraine holding largely free and fair elections and underlining our willingness to work with any government that emerges from coalition negotiations in support of reform.

BELARUS

  The OSCE's observation mission to Belarus' Presidential election on 19 March characterised it as "severely flawed due to the arbitrary use of state power and restrictions on basic rights". The election was followed by a further crackdown on the opposition and the arrest of over 800 individuals, including Alexander Milinkevich and Alexander Kozulin (candidates in the presidential election and opposing leaders). The UK and EU have responded strongly, including by issuing tough statements condemning election fraud, the subsequent crackdown on peaceful demonstrations, and the arrest of demonstrators. A travel ban against thirty-one individuals (including Lukashenko) was agreed by EU foreign ministers on 10 April. (This was reinforced on 18 May by the Council agreeing to impose asset freezes against those responsible for the election fraud and actions against the opposition, civil society, and the independent media).

  The EU remains open to developing relations with Belarus, including through to ENP, provided that the Belarusian authorities prove a sincere willingness to respect human rights, the rule of law and democratic freedoms, and initiate democratic reforms. This position was repeated by the GAERC in Conclusions on 6 April.

SECURITY OF ENERGY SUPPLIES

  The European Council in March this year asked the Commission and the Council to prepare a strategic review of EU energy policy by 2007, with work beginning this year. This builds on the Commission's Green Paper of 8 March and will look at security of energy supply, which should be achieved through full implementation of the single market in energy, diversification of supply into the EU, improved energy efficiency, and a coherent external strategy for EU dealings with source and transit countries. In the meantime, the June European Council will consider more closely external aspects of EU policy. The UK is working with EU partners to influence the outcomes both of the June Council and the Strategic Energy Review.

EU MONITORING AT RAFAH

  We are pleased that the EU Border Assistance Mission at Rafah continues to allow the Palestinians to operate the border between Gaza and Egypt following Israeli disengagement The EU's presence provides reassurance to all parties that the border is being properly operated. This makes a real difference to the lives of people in Gaza by improving their economic prospects and by allowing them greater freedom of movement

  The EU takes the security of its monitors seriously and has recently increased the size of the Specialist Security Team (to ten personnel) on the advice of the Head of Mission. In terms of the future prospects of the mission, we expect that it will continue to operate as long as the parties continue to support and meet their obligations under the Agreement for the border's operation.





7   1Ev 83 Back

8   Ev 83 Back


 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2006
Prepared 25 July 2006