Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-239)
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT
MP, MR ANTHONY
SMITH AND
MS SHAN
MORGAN
13 JUNE 2006
Q220 Richard Younger-Ross: On the
European scrutiny you referred to earlier, is not the risk that
legislation comes forward, you meet in smoke-filled rooms because
you deem that part of this process has to be done in smoke-filled
rooms, those proposals then come to the light of day and are brought
to this House, by which point Members of this House, the European
Scrutiny Committee, which I am also a Member of along with David
Heathcoat-Amory, or this Committee will be told, "We have
made a decision on that now because we have done the deal behind
closed doors". What kind of democratic process is that?
Margaret Beckett: I think there
is a very important distinction between general debate, general
issues, broad policy areas and so on that are explored in a variety
of Councils. My impression is—I do not want to do my colleagues
an injustice—it is quite a small number of specific subject
Councils where there will be issues which arise which are extremely
concrete and practical and where the detail is arcane very often
and Member States have to consider how within the broad parameters
that they negotiate, usually in public and that are known, their
particular national circumstances sit and what it is they feel
they can live with and what they feel they cannot live with. I
suppose one could say that in an ideal world all of these conversations
could take place but they never have and they probably never will
if anybody is to reach agreement. I have had a certain experience
of doing this, as I say, and in the end what happens is you sit
down in a room, invariably in private, with a relatively small
number of the ministers who are most affected or in some way ought
to be the ones that can reach a view, and you finally identify
what are the things that people cannot live with and what are
the things that they cannot go home without, and you hope that
out of that a pattern of mutual compatibility emerges and if it
does you have a success and you all go home, and if it does not
you have a failure. You are never going to be able to do that
in public. It may be sad but it is life.
Q221 Richard Younger-Ross: Yes, but
should not the Members of this House be able to influence its
ministers representing it in Europe on what they say and positions
they take in those discussions because at the moment they do not,
Minister?
Margaret Beckett: Yes, they do.
With respect, Mr Younger-Ross, how do you think that members of
these negotiations come to the view about what it is that they
cannot go home without. It is precisely on the basis of what their
national parliaments say, what the interests are they are trying
to defend and represent, and what the impact would be on people
within their communities. That is exactly how you come to the
list of what you could just about stand and what you cannot possibly
live with.
Q222 Richard Younger-Ross: Minister,
that is why Geoff Hoon wished to change the process to open up
scrutiny to make it more accountable to this House, a process
which was closed down by the Cabinet.
Margaret Beckett: I am not sure
that is an accurate description of what happened but, to be honest,
I do not remember because it was some time ago. It is difficult
to get the balance right between how one can practically bring
forward sets of proposals, often, as you are all very well aware,
substantial numbers of different proposals and get time and space
and opportunity for Members to scrutinise without, for example,
wiping out the rest of their workload. I doubt if the Members
of this Committee would be happy to have a degree of scrutiny
required of them on, say, European documents which meant that
it wiped out an awful lot of their other work. There is a balance
to be struck for everybody and that balance is not always easy.
One of the things that I think in the long-term, or even hopefully,
please God, in the short-term that could make a difference is
the insistence that we put in the Presidency, and which I think
has got increasing acceptance, of impact assessments at an early
stage for proposals coming forward from the European Union. One
of the things that would certainly help is if some of these ideas
are explored more fully before they come either to national parliaments
or, indeed, to the European Council and the European Parliament.
Q223 Mr Illsley: Foreign Secretary,
you mentioned a few moments ago that the period of reflection
in relation to the Constitution has now been extended and I just
wondered whether the British Government were comfortable with
that extension.
Margaret Beckett: Yes.
Q224 Mr Illsley: Or whether you have
any other views on the constitutional issues bearing in mind the
calls for further votes in France.
Margaret Beckett: Further votes
in France? I have not heard—
Q225 Mr Illsley: Giscard d'Estaing
recently said he thought France should vote again on the Constitution.
Margaret Beckett: I am sure the
French Government was very grateful for that.
Q226 Mr Illsley: I am sure they were.
Margaret Beckett: No, we are quite
comfortable. It reflects the reality. There is a period of reflection.
In that initial period of reflection I think Member States have
thought through more and more fully some of the implications of
the position in which the Union finds itself and I do not recall
anybody much suggesting that they objected to the extension of
the period. I think there is a general feeling that is the right
thing to do at this point in time.
Q227 Mr Illsley: We have also heard
Belgium's Prime Minister recently say if four or more Member States
ratify the Treaty that would bring the numbers to 20, which is
four-fifths, and that would create a totally new situation which
under the terms of the Constitution would allow for the matter
to be referred back to the Council, as I understand it. Do you
have any views on that? Do you feel the matter should be referred
back to the Council if four-fifths of the states do ratify?
Margaret Beckett: To be honest,
Mr Illsley, I do not see any real likelihood of that happening
at the present time. Belgium is one of the countries that ratifies
by parliamentary process. There are a number of Member States
who have not yet ratified who are committed to having a referendum
should the proposal come forward, or had the Treaty come forward.
I think he is entitled to have and to express his point of view,
and no doubt it is an area that can be discussed, but I do not
see much likelihood of that happening at this moment in time.
Q228 Mr Illsley: This brings me on
to my next question. There have been suggestions of a Europe-wide
referendum which would obviously circumvent the idea of individual
states voting against ratification. Do you rule that out as a
possibility? Do you agree with a Europe-wide referendum?
Margaret Beckett: It is not for
me to rule it out on behalf of the whole of the EU. Given that
there are 15 Member States who have ratified in one way or another,
mostly not by referendum, suppose you were one of the Member States
like Belgium, say, who has ratified by parliamentary process and
then someone comes along and says, "Now you have ratified
by parliamentary process, let's have a Europe-wide referendum"
in which, no doubt, the votes would be counted at a national level.
This would be an interesting exercise in public democracy but
one which those who have already ratified might not be thrilled
about. It is a very interesting idea but I cannot see it flying.
Q229 Mr Illsley: Including some of
us who have not voted. Finally, Geoff Hoon has already told the
Committee that he would not rule out Treaty changes in order to
bring in parts of the Constitution. Does the Government have in
mind at the moment any specific areas of change or will we assess
this as the issues relating to the Constitution progress?
Margaret Beckett: We are not thinking
about Treaty changes at the present time. Certainly there are
various people, among them our French colleagues, who are suggesting
that we should all think about whether there are things that could
be done like, as I said to Mr Mackinlay, improving the flow of
information and documents to national parliaments on the basis
of current treaties. That is something that is sometimes described
here as "cherry-picking". I think generally across the
European Union from all sorts of quarters there is a resistance
to the idea of cherry-picking from the Constitutional Treaty.
By that is meant bringing forward some elements of that Treaty
which would require a new legal basis. I think it is a different
matter, although nobody is involved in much discussion about this
yet, but the French, as I say, have put forward some suggestions
which are at a very early stage of discussion, that there are
ideas around which would not require a Treaty-based change which
could be done on the basis of current treaties, like better involvement
and involvement of parliaments and is this something we ought
to be prepared to consider. That is about as far as it has gone.
I am not conscious of people talking about Treaty change.
Q230 Mr Purchase: Just to follow
on that general pattern, Secretary of State, I guess the term
"period of reflection" could be read as procrastination.
In the meantime, we have now lived without a serious change in
the Constitutional Treaty for some little time. Do you see the
lack of progress on that as any impediment whatsoever to our prime
aim of improving prosperity across Europe? If not, are we making
much ado about nothing?
Margaret Beckett: No, I do not
see it as an impediment, certainly not at the present time. I
think it would be unwise to assume that it could not become an
impediment at some stage, especially as Europe continues to be
enlarged. It is not an impediment at the present time. In fact,
one of the things that I think is particularly interesting and
quite encouraging, which partly influenced my response at first
to the Chairman, is there is a growing welcome for the ideas that
were put forward and discussed at Hampton Court, what some people
call the Hampton Court process and others call the Europa projects,
that what we should be doing is looking for ways in which we can
produce concrete improvement on areas like economic reform, and
that should be the emphasis at the present time. There is no impediment
in our present governing circumstances to doing that, and a lot
of interest and goodwill towards doing it.
Chairman: Thank you very much. That takes
us on nicely to enlargement.
Q231 Mr Horam: Foreign Secretary,
do you think that enlargement does depend on constitutional change
of the kind we are discussing inside the European Union?
Margaret Beckett: No, I do not
think it does. Whether you could get to a stage, which we are
by no means at yet, when enlargement means that people would have
to consider whether there are ways in which we could improve our
administrative operations is another matter.
Q232 Mr Horam: So enlargement can
proceed without a constitutional change?
Margaret Beckett: Enlargement
certainly can proceed without a constitutional change.
Q233 Mr Horam: Where do you stand
on enlargement? There seem to be widely differing views. For example,
the Prime Minister of Poland recently said that he could not conceive
of a full European family without Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova
and so forth, whereas Commissioner Kroes has said that 27 is the
maximum as far as she is concerned. There seem to be widely differing
views and I wonder where you stand on all that.
Margaret Beckett: I was not aware
of what the Commissioner had said. We recognised Macedonia as
a candidate country quite recently.
Q234 Mr Horam: She is blunt about
the number.
Margaret Beckett: That is clearly
her view. It is a matter for discussion in the future. Obviously
there is a feeling that one of the things that could help to bring
about real improvement in the Western Balkans and around the edges
of the European Union, and it exists, is the prospect of association
or, in time, membership of the European Union. You asked me if
I thought lack of Treaty change was an impediment, and no I do
not, but what I do think is key is that the enlargement process
is properly and rigorously conducted. I think that is the key
and that is more likely to be a relevant factor in the pace of
change or the pace of enlargement than anything else.
Q235 Mr Horam: So you would welcome
countries like Ukraine and Moldova, providing they were properly
handled, into the European Union?
Margaret Beckett: I certainly
think that it could be an error to close the door on them and
say never but we are quite a long way from such a process.
Q236 Mr Horam: On the other hand,
we are quite a short way from countries like Bulgaria and Romania
where, as you know, there are concerns about inefficiency and
corruption, especially in Bulgaria. How do you feel that the Europeans
should handle this if we cannot overcome these problems in the
timescale that is envisaged?
Margaret Beckett: First of all,
I think there is a very clear and strong message going from the
whole of the European Union's existing membership to Bulgaria
and Romania, and because they are accession countries they are
in attendance at the Council so they are not under any illusions,
they hear all of this all the time, that they have to meet these
standards and it is very important and crucial and if this requires
a substantial increase and extension of effort then that is what
will have to happen. But, of course, there is also the question
because there is a timescale under the Accession Treaty, and I
do not want to dwell on this too much because the emphasis has
to be on "You must meet these standards and that is required
by the European Union before you become full members" and
that has to be the emphasis for them. It is perhaps worth reminding
the Committee, I am sure you are conscious of the fact, written
into the Accession Treaty is the possibility of applying some
post-accession measures so that, for example, access to the internal
market could be restricted in some way, or there are areas on
JHA issues where you could establish further monitoring. There
is scope for that but obviously the pressure now wants to be on
meeting them before they become members, not on a process afterwards.
Q237 Mr Keetch: You mentioned the
Western Balkans, can I ask about a few countries in that general
area starting with Kosovo. Are there any signs of progress being
made at the Contact Group on the future status of Kosovo that
you are aware of?
Margaret Beckett: I know that
their discussions are ongoing. I think there is a certain amount
of progress. I am hunting unsuccessfully for my notes. I am not
up to speed with what is coming out of the Contact Group at this
moment in time. I do know though that there are very strong differences
of view about the way forward for Kosovo. Everyone is trying very
hard to get an agreement about the way forward, but that has not
yet been achieved and the discussions are ongoing. I think we
are hoping for a report later this year from President Ahtisaari
but I do not have a date for that. The Special Envoy and the Contact
Group are continuing to work on it.
Q238 Mr Keetch: Let me ask you something
that you are going to be discussing on 12 June, and that is Montenegro,
because Montenegro, as you know, on 22 May voted narrowly in favour
of independence. Commissioner Rehn has already said that it might
be possible by the end of this year to conclude a Stabilisation
and Association Agreement with Montenegro. Do you believe it would
be possible to do that by the end of the year, and what is going
to be the British Government's view on that general Stabilisation
and Association Agreement?
Margaret Beckett: As Commissioner
Rehn said, there is the hope that might be possible. Obviously
in general terms we are in favour of such agreements being reached.
As you quite rightly say, it is very recent. Yesterday we made
the written statement that the UK is going to recognise Montenegro
as, indeed, I think are fellow Member States, and are seeking
to establish diplomatic relations. It is a little early to be
absolutely confident but I think the feeling is that, first of
all, it is not necessarily likely to be so very difficult to establish
such an agreement with Montenegro and, second, it is partly because
of their key place in the Balkans region itself, the issues that
there are across that region about crime and there are already,
and we rather anticipate there may be a substantial increase in
the number of British visitors going to Montenegro. Anything that
can be done to improve relations could be beneficial.
Q239 Mr Keetch: It is, indeed, a
very beautiful country, as you have mentioned. In the absence
of Mr Mackinlay, who has long sought to increase the diplomatic
representation of the United Kingdom in Podgorica, I understand
a statement has been made today about that. Could you just tell
the Committee what is the change of our diplomatic post in Podgorica?
Margaret Beckett: We are changing
our office in Montenegro to an embassy. That will be as soon as
is practicable, and we will be appointing a resident ambassador
in Podgorica.
| 
