Examination of Witnesses (Questions 208-219)
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT
MP, MR ANTHONY
SMITH AND
MS SHAN
MORGAN
13 JUNE 2006
Q208 Chairman: Good afternoon, everybody.
Secretary of State, welcome back. I am not sure if you will be
before us every week but at least two weeks running!
Margaret Beckett: It would be
a pleasure, Chairman.
Q209 Chairman: Can I begin by asking
you how you see our policy as a Government on Europe at this moment?
Margaret Beckett: First, Chairman,
perhaps I could introduce my colleagues. On my left is Anthony
Smith, who is the Director of European Political Affairs, and
on my right is Shan Morgan who is now Director, EU. I think the
European Union itself, despite the obvious difficulties with which
you are all familiar, is entering into a period of an increased
degree of mutual confidence, I think I would put it like that,
and hopefully mutual effectiveness. I think we are getting the
beginnings of a clearer balance between what the EU can do, where
the EU can add value, and what Member States can contribute. My
perception, even after quite a short time in this post, building
on my experience in my previous capacity, is that there is an
ever closer understanding between Member States and their representatives
on many issues. That does not leave out the fact that there are
also lots of difficulties and different nuances of points of view,
all of which you will be familiar with. My overall general impression,
if you want something as general as that, is that the EU is coming
together in a way which has the potential to be very positive.
Q210 Andrew Mackinlay: Secretary
of State, I apologise, I have got to leave early for a funeral.
When the Minister for Europe was Leader of the House it is well-known
that he tried to develop interest in the Government whips' office,
it might have been in the opposition whips as well, I do not know,
about reviewing how we do parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation,
and it came to nothing. I wonder if you could elaborate on what
your vision of that is. That is bound up with the General Affairs
Council in the past week which had this paper from Barroso, COM
278, Europe in the World: Some Practical Proposals for Greater
Coherence, Effectiveness and Visibility, which talked about
engaging Member States and national parliaments but did not go
on to elaborate in any way. I wonder if you could see how fairly
immediately the democratic deficit could be addressed involving
national parliaments in greater scrutiny and openness. The final
part of this is all these press reports where you are identified
as being opposed to television access, press access, to Council
meetings, which I do not judge about but it seems to me there
is a burden on you as ministers to say where we go from here on
transparency, openness and addressing the democratic deficit.
Margaret Beckett: I do not completely
recall all the details of what Geoff Hoon considered and thought
about, but I do know that there were concerns. I honestly do not
know what the view of the opposition whips was because, as you
may or may not know, Mr Mackinlay, speaking as a former whip,
the relationship between the whips' offices is often very good
but they regard it as a pearl of great price from the point of
view of information, so I have no idea what the attitude of the
opposition whips was, but I do know there was a considerable willingness
to see how we could improve scrutiny, and I will come back to
that in a second, but a nervousness that was either too complex
or could be unworkable in terms of the timing and demands it would
make on Members. Indeed, as you will appreciate, perhaps this
Committee more than many others, often the EU is quite a fast
moving situation and what no-one wanted was to end up in a position
where you were either having continuous scrutiny reserves that
impeded progress in the direction Member States wanted or, alternatively,
that you were continually lifting scrutiny reserves in a way which
made it look as if there was not the regard for the views of Parliament
that there ought to be just because of the practicalities. That
is the first thing I would say. Second, I am aware that President
Barroso has produced some proposals. I cannot recall whether this
is part of his proposals but I do know that there has been some
general thinking about whether or not there are ways of directly
helping with the work of the national parliaments in the sense
of making documents and proposals more readily and more speedily
available directly to national parliaments themselves so that
members of the different parliaments can follow things through
from an early stage. I think things along those lines would be
extremely helpful. On the issue of transparency, I think one of
the things with which we all deal as politicians is the media
wish to deal only in extremes because that is so much more interesting
than boring shades of opinion. Actually, I am not opposed to transparency
at all. Indeed, like all of the Government, I very much support
it. It was a proposal of the British Presidency that we should
look for ways of having greater transparency. Where we are at
present is that the present Presidency has proposed what seems
to me to be quite a substantial move forward on what was proposed
in the British Presidency in the sense of suggesting that all
deliberations on legislative proposals that are to be taken by
co-decision should be in open Council. I have spent seven out
of the last nine years dealing with negotiations in subject Councils
and, frankly, I take the view, and I have said this to my colleagues
in open Council and also in private session over lunch, because
of course the General Affairs Council does have a private session
over lunch, it is important to get the balance of this right.
I have urged my colleagues to consider, and it remains to be seen
whether or not they will do so, that we adopt an approach which
we have been urging on all European Union business and approaches,
which is of an impact assessment. Not saying, "no, this would
not work", although personally I have great doubts about
whether it would work, but saying, "Let us move forward to
greater transparency as we all agreed. Let us then assess how
that works and see whether, on the basis of that experience, we
judge that we could do more". I am uneasy about the idea
that all processes of negotiation on legislation and, indeed,
on other areas perhaps, or in terms of this case where there is
co-decision, would all have to be in full Council. I cannot think
of a single negotiation I have been involved in of any difficulty
or delicacy that has not ultimately had to be resolved, at least
to a substantial degree, behind closed doors because you have
to have very frank exchanges. Indeed, I can recall saying to colleagues
on one occasion when we were in the Presidency, "We understand
that there are particular concerns that you may have that you
may not want to disclose in full Council, but if you share them
with us we can see if we can meet your main concerns". I
am nervous because something like that is bound to continue and
it would be a pity if we got the balance of that wrong.
Q211 Andrew Mackinlay: The Barroso
paper is itself indicative of one of the deficiencies because
it exists, it has not been furnished to the United Kingdom Parliament,
it is not national security. We are scrutinising yourself and
the executive today and it has not been made available, and I
think that is regrettable. I have had the benefit of seeing a
copy, not via London. It says that it is not intended to reopen
the Treaty, which in a sense I would have thought a lot of people,
whatever our perspective on the European Union, would be very
relieved to hear. You might want to amplify upon that. That is
point A. Point B is that there is this proposal that there should
be "double-hatting" of diplomats. The way I understand
it, for instance, is that a United Kingdom diplomat may also formally
provide for the European Union External Affairs Service, or whatever
it is called. Again, I have no objection to that in principle
but it seems to me a major departure or institutional change which
we ought to hear you on.
Margaret Beckett: First of all,
on reopening the Treaty, let me say straight away that I detect
no desire among colleagues at this moment in time to start to
reopen all the detailed areas of the Treaty. Indeed, as you will
know, a decision has just been taken to extend the period of reflection.
I do not think there is any question of something along those
lines taking place. I am not sure what wide circulation the Barroso
document has had, I just know that it exists. We submitted some
comments of our own. With regard to the issue of double-hatting,
it will not work in every respect, it is just an issue of whether
there are occasions when there is merit in someone who is involved
in an area being the person who deals with it in the round. I
do not think there is any suggestion, and certainly it is a suggestion
that we would approach with great caution, that someone who is
speaking for the EU would speak on behalf of the UK, except in
circumstances like those that we had in Iran last week where policy
was agreed by Member States and because of the wish to have a
similar interlocutor on behalf of not just the European Union
but on behalf of all the Permanent 5 and Germany to talk to the
Iranians, it was decided to ask Javier Solana to take on that
role. The policy he was conveying, communicating if you like,
was the policy of Member States and, indeed, of the Americans,
the Russians and the Chinese.
Q212 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: The European
Scrutiny Committee, which I am on, did actually resolve to meet
in public but the then Leader of the House did absolutely nothing
to implement that, so the Government has not got a good record
on openness and transparency as regards proceedings of this House.
Foreign Secretary, you are perhaps more responsible for the Council
of Ministers and you have explained your caution about allowing
the public to see what is going on. Can I remind you that the
last Minister for Europe wrote to the European Scrutiny Committee
on 13 March this year saying that the UK objective "remains
to push for all of the Council's legislative business to be opened
up to the public". In your new role, why have rowed back
from that and are now expressing problems with this rather modest
measure to allow people into this hallowed event of legislating
in private?
Margaret Beckett: First of all,
it is not clear to me that I have rowed back from what Douglas
Alexander said because the proposal that he made, with which I
have no quarrel at all, was that the key parts of that process,
any opening part of the process and, indeed, the final issue,
the votes and explanation of votes, all of that should be in the
public domain. It was not part of the proposal that was agreed
in December that all deliberations, every bit of it on such proposals,
would be in the public domain. You refer to it as "allowing"
the public to see what is going on but I feel confident—you
were at one time, if I recall correctly, on your party's front
bench—there are times when people need to thrash out issues
frankly in a way which is not always easy to explain when there
are really difficult issues and differences to be resolved. That
is equally true among politicians of all parties, it is true at
national level, it is true in the European Union and, indeed,
in any other gathering of ministers. I am totally in favour, as
I said earlier, of much greater openness than we have had hitherto;
what I am not in favour of is moving to a process which I personally
feel might be somewhat unworkable and which I fear may mean simply
that issues that could and should have been aired in that forum
will not be aired in that forum, they will be aired somewhere
else outside it. That is my concern. It is just a practical one
based on several years of experience in doing this.
Q213 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I am sorry
but what you have said does not accord with what the Europe Minister
said quite unambiguously. He was unconditional. He said, the objective
"remains to push for all of the Council's legislative business
to be opened up", he did not refer to the end position to
be published, he was referring to all of the Council's legislative
business. There is a clear difference between what the Foreign
Office was saying a couple of months ago and what it is saying
now. Surely there is an issue here of the public's right to know.
One of the suspicions, even the hostilities, towards Europe is
that there is this secretive body that passes laws which are binding
on us all. Would it not help break that down if they could see
Member State representatives arguing between themselves and reaching
a compromise? Does that not enrich the democratic process? Forgive
me, but you have given a very bureaucratic insider's view of keeping
it all away from the children which is precisely the problem we
are grappling with with this enormous gap that has opened up between
the rulers and the ruled in Europe. I am really dismayed that
in your first few weeks you have resiled from a position which
was quite clearly put by the Minister for Europe so very recently.
Margaret Beckett: I think perhaps
there is a misunderstanding here because what Douglas was talking
about was the legislative business, not the legislative proceedings.
I repeat, what was in the proposal which Douglas put forward,
and which was accepted by the European Union, was that there should
be as much as possible, certainly the opening, even if that was
an oral presentation by the Commission, and there should be a
clear view of what positions different Member States were taking,
a clear and open public acceptance of where Member States stood,
an explanation of that, all of that I do not have any quarrel
with. When he talked about all the business I think you will find
that what he was talking about was all of the legislative business
however it arose, whether it was initially from an oral presentation
by the Commission or whatever, not, if I can make that distinction,
all of the proceedings because that was not the UK Government's
proposal, and I have not changed the UK Government's proposal.
Secondly, you say right to know where Member States stand because
we are passing laws binding on us all. Of course, giving public
access to how Member States have put their decision and what decision
it is in the public domain, the explanation of why they have taken
that stance, all of that is much greater openness than we have
now and all of that, you are quite right, is something to which
the public should have access, and under the proposals that are
in front of the European Union can have access. I merely repeat,
and maybe I should not say this to you, maybe it will give you
comfort given what I rather think to be your views, getting the
balance of this wrong could make the processes of decision-making
in the European Union almost unworkable. That might suit you but
I am not sure it would be of benefit to the peoples of Europe.
Q214 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary,
as you know there have been widespread reports that Britain is
preparing to give up the national veto on EU law and order legislation.
I noted that an official Government spokesman when asked to respond
to this said: "We are not going to close the door on it".
Can you tell the Committee, is Britain preparing to give up the
veto on law and order legislation?
Margaret Beckett: First, can I
say my understanding is that there is no formal proposal yet in
this respect but there have been various observations about it
and the Commission has indicated this is something that they think
perhaps we, the European Union, should consider. I am well aware
that whenever it is suggested that we should move towards Qualified
Majority Voting in any area new area there are always, quite rightly,
anxieties and people want to know what it would mean and what
would be the benefit of it and so on. Can I simply say the reason
that I assume a spokesman from our Government said that we did
not have a closed mind on it is because we recognise that there
is a legitimate argument. We are a long way from any decision
on this, there is not even a proposal yet, but there is a legitimate
argument that runs that since, unfortunately, organised crime
in particular, but crime in a number of other issues in this area
are themselves cross-boundary, they are pan-European, and to insist
that all of this can only be dealt with on the basis of not having
QMV, not having a pan-European potential approach could be an
area of weakness. I repeat, there is not a proposal, there is
not yet a decision and it will all be aired to a greater extent
than before in public.
Q215 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary,
as you know, there have been specific areas which the present
Government and, indeed, its predecessor have made very clear are
non-negotiable as far as the surrender of the right to veto is
concerned. Treaty change is one I give as an illustration and,
of course, there have been others. What you are saying to the
Committee is this is not an area in which the Government is absolutely
firm on its position and the Government is ready to make concessions
if it can be persuaded to the merits of doing so, is that the
position?
Margaret Beckett: I am not saying
anything very exciting, I do not think, Sir John. I am saying
that if such a proposal comes forward, and I repeat no such proposal
has yet come forward, we will look at it very carefully to see
whether there is anything in it which we believe is in the interests
of the United Kingdom, and that I think is what you would wish
us to do. You are absolutely right, there are a number of areas,
certainly some areas in this dossier, where the Government could
well have red lines where we are simply not prepared to consider
giving up the veto. Given the pan-European nature of some of these
problems—I do not wish to prejudge the Committee's view—you
might well be equally critical of us were we to say we would never
consider such a thing no matter how much it looked to be in our
interests.
Q216 Mr Keetch: Foreign Secretary,
will Mr Geoffrey Hoon be joining you at the next European Council
meeting?
Margaret Beckett: I have not the
faintest idea. I do not know what his diary is. It is possible.
The matter has not come up. Do you mean the one that is just coming?
Q217 Mr Keetch: Yes.
Margaret Beckett: No, he definitely
will not. I am sorry, Chairman, I was thinking you meant the one
after that. If I could just say to the Committee his father died
very recently so, no, he will not be there.
Q218 Mr Keetch: I am very sorry to
hear that. Can I just ask about his role in terms of his predecessors'
roles. Is his role as Minister for Europe the same as, for example,
his immediate predecessor, Mr Douglas Alexander? Do they have
the same responsibilities within your Department?
Margaret Beckett: I believe so.
In fact, I think he may have a few more because there are one
or two areas where we now want to give a little greater emphasis
because there are issues that are arising in a way that they did
not and we do not have the Presidency now so there is a little
bit more room for him to take on some other things.
Q219 Mr Keetch: Do you agree with
Mr Denis MacShane, another former holder of that post, that an
opportunity was missed by not having a Secretary of State for
Europe? There certainly was some discussion on the morning of
the reshuffle that that was what Mr Hoon might have been offered
or might have been seeking. Do you think it is time for Britain
to have a Secretary of State for Europe?
Margaret Beckett: No, I do not,
and, what is more to the point, neither did the Prime Minister.
|
