 House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates European Standing Committee Debates |
Diplomatic and Consular Protection of Citizens in Third Countries |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Mrs E.
Commander, Committee
Clerk
†
attended the Committee
European Standing CommitteeTuesday 15 May 2007[Mr. Greg Pope in the Chair]Diplomatic and Consular Protection of Citizens in Third Countries4.30
pm
The
Minister for Europe (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon):
Mr. Pope, may I begin by trying to express the full extent
of my appreciation at having the opportunity to discuss the European
Commission’s Green Paper on diplomatic and consular protection
of Union citizens in third countries? The Green Paper began a
consultation process that will culminate in a public hearing in
Brussels on 29 May.
First, let me set out the
Government’s commitment to consular work. As the European
Scrutiny Committee has noted, consular work remains at the top of our
agenda. UK residents make 65 million visits overseas every year, and
our consular staff in London and overseas assist thousands of
potentially vulnerable British nationals every week. My ministerial
colleagues take a close interest in difficult individual cases and
intervene where that is appropriate and effective. I am sure that we
can all agree with my noble Friend Lord Triesman, who said that such
services are the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s
“shop window—the side of
our work by which most of the public know us.”
In March 2006, we introduced an
international strategic priority on consular work to reflect our
commitment. The launch of our public guide “Support for British
Nationals Abroad”, a copy of which I have here, is an integral
part of delivering that priority. The guide sets out what we can and
cannot do for British nationals in distress overseas. We are now
focussed on meeting as effectively, efficiently and consistently as
possible the high standards that we have set ourselves. In doing so, we
often rely on the co-operation of other European Union member
states.
We also take
very seriously our obligations to assist unrepresented EU citizens
under article 20 of the treaty of the European Community. We have a
larger consular network than many other countries and co-ordinate with
other European consulates to ensure that all unrepresented EU nationals
have access to consular assistance. For 2005-06, we have records
showing that we assisted in 120 such serious cases around the world.
Likewise, we appreciate the fact that our EU partners’
assistance is available in several countries where we are not
physically represented.
I firmly
believe that our membership of the EU strengthens our consular
assistance to British nationals. Working as one of 27 member states
gives us a stronger voice when we need to lobby third Governments. Our
consuls and vice-consuls across the world benefit from being able to
share information about issues such as prison conditions and local
legal systems. Such
co-ordination among member states has improved in recent years, and we
remain committed to exploring new ways of
co-operating.
I am therefore grateful to the
Commission for contributing to the
debate—
The
Chairman:
Order. Perhaps I can explain. The Minister
cannot take interventions during his opening statement, but the hon.
Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to ask
questions.
We are grateful to the
Commission for contributing to the debate. For example, we welcome its
suggestion that we raise public awareness of the right of unrepresented
EU citizens to seek consular assistance from other EU consulates and we
support better public access to other member states’ travel
advice. We also welcome the Commission’s offer to fund and
facilitate the sharing of best practice among member states.
Nevertheless,
the documents also make proposals about the Commission’s role in
consular work, and those need careful consideration. At this stage,
many of the proposals are simply not clear enough for us to come to a
view, and I can immediately identify several legal, political and
practical concerns. Our initial response is to be wary of the provision
of consular assistance through common offices or through the Commission
itself. That is because member states are best placed to provide
consular help. Under international law, only they are competent to
perform consular functions and only they have the training and
experience needed to address the huge range of consular situations
overseas. British nationals want to receive consular assistance from
British consulates wherever possible, and we must respect that; after
all, we fund consular work through a premium on passport
fees.
As
I made clear, we are keen to co-ordinate with our EU Partners. We
co-locate with EU Partners in Almaty, Ashkhabad, Dar es Salaam,
Pyongyang, Quito, Reykjavik, Minsk and Chisinau. EU missions are
encouraged to allocate unrepresented nationals among themselves on the
basis of resources and language. That approach, which is based on
co-ordination mechanisms run by our overseas posts, is sensible and
productive. EU heads of mission in one South American country recently
made joint, and therefore powerful, representations on poor prison
conditions and allegations of
mistreatment.
We do
not, therefore, see the value of common offices staffed by a mixture of
consular staff. There are 27 different member states, which provide 27
different levels of consular assistance around the world. The
Commission has not explained whether such common offices would provide
different levels of consular assistance depending on the nationality of
the consular officer or the traveller in distress, or whether some kind
of common consular policy would be required.
In the crisis
context, we support the German presidency in taking forward the lead
state framework. We believe that it offers the most effective means of
ensuring effective and co-ordinated responses to crises outside the EU.
The Commission and the Council secretariat could usefully provide
logistical and communications support to member states within that
framework, but we do not see a role for either institution in the front
line.
I
am concerned by the suggestion that Commission delegations should
provide consular assistance in the future. Commission staff carry out a
valuable role in their delegations around the world, but they have no
experience in providing consular
assistance.
Moreover,
the rules and principles enshrined in the Vienna convention on consular
relations provide for the provision of consular assistance by states
only, not intergovernmental organisations or their institutions. Nor
does the Commission have any competency in this area under any of the
EU treaties. Article 20 of the European treaty is a non-discrimination
provision. It simply requires member states to assist unrepresented
nationals of other member states on the same terms as they would assist
their own nationals. It does not create a right to consular assistance
under EU law.
The
policy and provision of consular assistance is a highly technical
undertaking that covers a great range of situations. In 2005-06,
consular officials dealt with more than 3.1 million enquiries, helped
27,000 people in serious distress, made more than 5,200 prison visits
and helped some 200 British nationals escape forced marriages. We have
developed our training, networks and guidance to meet, first and
foremost, the needs of British nationals overseas. In addition to the
65 million overseas visits that I mentioned, there are 13.6 million
potential British passport holders living abroad. That is one of the
largest and most diffuse of European
diasporas.
Other
member states face different demands and have different approaches. For
example, the Green Paper assumes that all member states provide a legal
right to consular assistance. In fact, the practice varies across the
EU, from constitutional provisions in Germany to the provision of
consular assistance as a matter of policy by the Dutch, Austrians and
ourselves. Therefore, the Government believe that it would be extremely
difficult to produce a common consular policy. Moreover, it is unclear
what the benefits would be, nor is it clear that EU citizens currently
suffer from the variation of service between member
states.
I would be
happy to answer any questions on the proposals before we proceed to the
debate.
The
Chairman:
We now have until half past 5 for questions to
the Minister. I remind Members that questions should be brief and
should be asked one at a time. There is likely to be ample opportunity
for all Members to ask several questions, and I know that the Minister
is keen to answer as many as
possible.
Mr.
Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): It is a
pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time,
Mr. Pope. It is also a pleasure to catch the Minister before
he moves on to fresh pastures. I am pleased to be able to say that the
Opposition broadly welcome the tone of the Government’s reaction
to the Green Paper.
The Minister
in his opening statement—and, indeed, the explanatory
memorandum—rightly said that it is problematic to suggest, as
the Green Paper does, that consular services are provided as a right
because the United Kingdom and other member states offer them as a
matter of policy. Does he agree therefore that printing article 20 of
the EU treaty in passports could be misleading and give rise to
unreasonable expectations that cannot actually be justified by
law?
Mr.
Hoon:
It is not necessarily misleading. It simply
indicates that it would be open to a British citizen to go to the
office of another EU member state in those relatively few parts of the
world where there is not a physical British presence. I am sure that
the hon. Gentleman would join me in believing that that isa
welcome addition to the various opportunities available to British
citizens, as he is well known as a strong supporter of the European
Union.
Jeremy
Corbyn:
During the crisis in Lebanon last year,
there were serious problems for people who were stuck there during the
fighting. The British embassy gave enormous support to British
citizens—I have no complaint whatsoever about that, and praise
embassy staff for the support that they gave—but there is a
constant problem around the world for family members who may have
different immigration status in this country. For example, the children
may be British citizens but the parents, who may have indefinite leave
to remain in this country, may be citizens of another country. They can
be and sometimes are refused any consular access or support. Could the
Minister clarify the situation? It is a real problem for many people
who have migrated to this country wholly legally, but who do not have
full
citizenship.
Mr.
Hoon:
My hon. Friend raises a real and
practical problem, which I anticipate is growing as people form
relationships outside their country of origin and sometimes inevitably
outside the European Union. There is clearly not a specific EU response
to that question, because the relationship may be with a citizen of a
non-EU member state and the children may not have lived in the EU. I
have certainly seen letters to right hon. and hon. Members dealing with
such questions. All that I can say is that, as far as the EU is
concerned, if a British citizen forms a relationship with someone who
is a non-British citizen but is from the EU, the kind of closer
approach that we are discussing would make it easier to co-ordinate the
situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North
describes.
Generally
speaking, I doubt whether British consular officials outside the EU,
faced with a crisis similar to that in Lebanon, would operate a wholly
strict policy of not assisting children, for example, who happened to
have a non-EU citizenship. In my experience, our consular staff are
widely and rightly praised for their help in such
circumstances.
I have
probably covered all the relevant details relating to the EU. If my
hon. Friend would like to raise further matters, I will certainly try
to provide answers, or I can write to him in due
course.
Mr.
Brady:
The explanatory memorandum also makes it clear
that, under existing international law, consular relations are between
states and there can
therefore be no role for the EU institutions, particularly the
Commission. Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty’s
Government would oppose any changes in that situation in international
law? Will he also make it clear that the Government oppose any
provision in a future EU treaty that may give rise to an expectation of
any such consular role developing for the EU
institutions?
Mr.
Hoon:
I would probably draw a distinction, in relation to
the EU institutions, between the role of the European Commission, which
I have fairly extensively criticised in terms of this paper, and the
role of the Council, because clearly there would be circumstances that
would be legally and constitutionally proper in which member states
pooled resources—perhaps in a new country where it was not at
the time economically viable to establish an independent embassy. We
have seen that with the collapse of the Soviet Union andthe
formation of new countries following those momentous
events.
In
those circumstances, it is right to distinguish between sovereign
member states deciding among themselves to pool their resources for the
assistance of EU citizens, and the European Commission trying to
develop a new competence over and above that of the relevant
international law through the Vienna convention, or European law. I
urge the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West to draw that
distinction as
well.
Mr.
Brady:
I want to pursue this point. The
Minister rightly draws the Committee’s attention to the
distinction between the role of the Commission and that of the Council,
but he will also be aware that proposals inthe constitution,
as it was proposed, would have had the effect of fusing the role of the
high representative and that of the external relations commissioner
into a so-called Foreign Minister for the European Union. Does the
Minister agree that creating a single role of that sort, supported by a
single diplomatic service beneath it, would make precisely the kind of
distinction that he draws, and that I support, impossible to
maintain?
Mr.
Hoon:
I am sure that you, Mr. Pope, would like
us to have a long and detailed discussion about the complex and
difficult negotiations that will lead up to a conclusion or otherwise
at the forthcoming European summit, but what the hon. Gentleman
describes is simply one of a number of different ideas that have been
discussed in the past and will have to be resolved by unanimity when
and if agreement is
reached.
Mr.
Lee Scott (Ilford, North) (Con): I pay tribute to the way
in which British consulates deal with a situation in which, say, one
person in a couple is a British citizen, the other is a fellow European
Union-country citizen and the laws differ between the two countries.
However, I am dealing with cases in which the consulates of other
countries have not dealt with such situations in quite the same way,
because of different laws in their own countries. How would that be
addressed by the
proposal?
Mr.
Hoon:
I highlighted precisely that
difficulty in my opening remarks. Different countries have different
traditions in respect of consular assistance, and they in
turn are based on different legal principles and a different approach.
It necessarily follows that each country must apply its relevant law to
the circumstances of its own citizens, and I am sure that the hon.
Gentleman would assume that that applies to the United Kingdom. That is
the approach that British consular officials take, subject, of course,
to the law of the host nation in which they are
operating.
Two sorts
of law are applicable. Generally speaking, the law of the host country
will be uppermost in most minds at the time that the assistance is
being provided, because it obviously affects the individual, assuming
that in the example given they are a British citizen. Clearly, consular
representation has to deal with the relevant local law, which is how it
should
be.
Jeremy
Corbyn:
I thank the Minister for the reply that he gave
earlier to my question. I realise that it might be difficult for him to
give a full answer now, but perhaps he could consider the matter and
send me some correspondence on it. I raised the issue because it is a
very real problem, as he readily acknowledged. In some cases, people
who have sought asylum in this country will be given travel documents
that do not allow them to travel to their country of origin, for
obvious reasons. They do not yet have citizenship of this country but
are travelling legally, often with the rest of their family who may
well be British
nationals.
Generally
speaking, my experience has been that consular services are flexible
and helpful and that officials act in a perfectly sensible way, but
there is a real problem if people are faced with the sort of disastrous
situation that requires evacuation—for example, civil unrest or
some kind of natural disaster. I suspect that consular staff simply
would not be allowed to spend money on that sort of thing under normal
rules of
expenditure.
I realise
that it is difficult for the Minister to give a full answer now, but
that cannot be an unusual problem for Britain or, indeed, any other EU
country. Perhaps we should be thinking more in terms of giving support
as a matter of course to people who are legally resident in this or any
other European country, rather than leaving it to the discretion of the
consul.
The
Chairman:
Order. Before the Minister replies, I understand
why the Member raises the point, but I think that it is a little wide
of the documents that are before the Committee. For the convenience of
the Committee, perhaps the Minister could respond to the Member in
writing.
Mr.
Hoon:
With your permission, Mr. Pope, I will
just say that it is unlikely that I can give my hon. Friend a
comprehensive answer, given the complexity of relationships these days
even within the European Union. He fairly accepted that most of the
time our consular authorities in different countries behave in a
flexible way. I think that that is actually the answer to the question
about evacuation.
I
have been involved in a couple of evacuations, and in each case either
the UK or another country was designated as the lead nation for the
purpose of the evacuation. We were the lead nation on behalf of the EU
in one case that I can think of, and people were
helped, providing that they were EU citizens. Frankly, I suspect that
there was not a precise passport check at the time that they were
evacuated from the particular crisis. It seems that the answer is
flexibility and understanding, given the circumstances in question. I
shall certainly write to my hon.
Friend.
Mr.
Brady:
Will the Minister give the Committee a clearer
indication of the current levels of use of the reciprocal arrangements,
and also some indication of where the net cost burden falls?
Specifically, I would like to know whether a disproportionate cost
fallson the UK, given that our network of consular
representation is more extensive than that of some of our EU partners.
If so, is there any mechanism to secure some payment as happens, for
instance, in the reciprocal arrangements between EU countries for the
provision of health
services?
Mr.
Hoon:
I gave an indication of the number of serious
cases—I think that I said that there were about 120 cases in
which we had assisted other countries. The hon. Gentleman is right to
suggest that this issue involves the larger countries and not only the
United Kingdom. France, for example, has an extensive system of
representation around the European Union and, indeed, around the world.
The larger countries will necessarily have more extensive
representation than some of the smaller
countries.
I cannot
give detailed statistics, because I suspect that those records are
simply not kept. It would be a massive bureaucratic exercise to
maintain detailed records of each and every time that consular
assistance was provided to a non-British national in various parts of
the world, which would not be a particularly productive use of
officials’ time. However, it is right that we share the burdens
as members of the European Union. The larger states, having larger
populations and therefore facing larger problems, probably end up about
even in terms of the way in which assistance is provided. I am thinking
of the help given by smaller member states, which have smaller
populations.
Mr.
Brady:
The Minister has given a
perfectly fair answer, but I want to make a point about the comments in
the Government’s official response to the Green Paper about the
possibility of “consular shopping”—I think that
that is the phrase that the Government used. I am grateful that the
Minister has accepted that I am the last person to urge an
over-bureaucratic approach in measuring these things, but I am sure
that he accepts that, if we are to avoid the danger of consular
shopping, it is necessary to have some measure of the costs and how
they are being borne by different member
states.
Mr.
Hoon:
In relation to any significant cost, suchas
the cost of flights, there may well be some reimbursement, depending on
the numbers and the scale of the crisis, but frankly I do not think
that the hon. Gentleman’s two propositions can stand together.
Either we maintain detailed and bureaucratic records—he claims
to be against that—in which case we could assess the costs and
charges, or we do not. He cannot have it both ways, although he often
likes to
try.
Mr.
Brady:
I will move on, but I would be interested to know
at some point how the Government will measure whether consular shopping
is happening.
The Minister
has told us in how many countries the United Kingdom shares premises
with other member states, but can he give us an indication of what
account is taken in the current climate—in which the scale,
scope and location of overseas missions is under review from time to
time—of the existence of representation from other EU countries
in what are perhaps quieter corners of the world? Does the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office engage in any attempt to co-ordinate provision to
ensure that some representation is maintained from one of the bigger EU
countries?
Mr.
Hoon:
It is important to pay tribute to the United
Kingdom’s extensive network of honorary consuls, because even in
the countries where there is not a physical presence, there will be an
honorary consul, a person who, often unpaid, provides tremendous
service to British citizens who get into difficulty or distress in that
part of the world. It is unlikely that a British citizen almost
anywhere in the world will not find someone to provide some assistance
over and above the formal arrangements made through British embassies
and consular
representation.
As I
said in my opening remarks, it was in particular the rapid pace of
change and the emergence of new countries following the break-up of the
Soviet Union that led to a number of shared arrangements, and it seems
sensible that that should be the case. I have visited Astana, for
example, where we are co-located with the Italians, the Belgians, the
Dutch and the Commission delegation. In Almaty, the former capital of
Kazakhstan, our embassy offices are co-located with those of the French
and the Germans. In such circumstances, it seems sensible that we
should, when we can, share costs.
There are separate facilities
within a shared building, so each country takes advantage of sharing
the overhead costs while maintaining a formal separation in respect of
the work that is done. However, I anticipate that there may well be
sensible circumstances in which we look to share facilities. That would
be subject to a technical distinction between providing consular
services and the more representative functions of a British embassy
abroad. The technical job of assisting UK citizens who may be in
distress is vital—wherever they happen to be, they must feel
confident that they will receive a proper service. As I said, that can
be done either through a formal physical presence or the network of
honorary consuls.
Mr.
Brady:
Paragraph 1.6 of the Green Paper proposes a
programme of information for citizens. Given that the
Government’s view appears to be that the Green Paper shows a
failure to understand the existing international law on consular
provision and the current practice of some member states, including the
United Kingdom, how can the Government ensure that the information is
not misinformation? What steps will they propose if the Commission puts
such an information programme in
train?
Mr.
Hoon:
The short answer is in the British
Government’s detailed representations. We have clearly set out
our concerns, which, interestingly, are similar to those set out by
France, our nearest neighbour across the channel. There is a
consistency of view.
I simply invite the hon.
Gentleman to consider the perspective of a very small European Union
member state, which would not have such an extensive network of
representation. Clearly, there would be benefits to such a country in
finding ways to share representation with other similar smaller states.
That might be a sensible way forward. I agree with the hon. Gentleman
to this extent: it is vital that whatever information is made available
is accurate, up-to-date and assists EU citizens from whatever country
they
come.
Mr.
Brady:
The Minister has explained the distinction between
“access to” and “obligation as of right”.
Does he believe that the obligation in the treaty to provide
non-discriminatory access to consular services is fulfilled by
providing a comparable range of services to the citizens of other EU
member states? Can he confirm whether in cases of urgent need, services
would be provided by British missions to British citizens first, before
the needs of citizens of other member states were attended to, and that
that is consistent with non-discriminatory access to the
service?
Mr.
Hoon:
I nearly thought that we had found a provision of
the constitutional treaty that the hon. Gentleman supported. However,
he ruined his tremendous start to his question by going on to nit-pick
in the way for which he is
famous.
As far as the
comparable range of services is concerned, it clearly follows that not
all member states will have the same range of representation around the
world. By and large, I would have thought that if a country is
providing consular services for its citizens, those services should be
roughly consistent, although different legal traditions and different
traditions in different member states should be borne in
mind.
I would not want
to suggest that there would be a strict policy of providing for British
citizens first, because that would almost certainly be contrary to the
strict legal provision to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
However, I do not believe that any non-British citizen would be in any
way disadvantaged by the arrangements. In a strict crisis, we would
obviously provide assistance to UK citizens, because we would have a
clear legal obligation to do
so.
Mr.
Brady:
I should say to the Minister that I will miss him
too, just as I miss his two predecessors. I look forward to his
successor.
Is the
same offer of reciprocal assistance made available routinely to
Commonwealth countries or to other non-EU member
states?
Mr.
Hoon:
First, I could not help but notice in the hon.
Gentleman’s opening observations what I detected as a plaintive
plea to the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) for a
move. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be granted release from
his burdens at some stage. The Opposition will continue to raise
whatever issues they can find on these matters. I congratulate the hon.
Gentleman on his ingenuity; it is important that we continue to provide
a full range of consular services to citizens from the Commonwealth and
I assure him that that remains the case.
Mr.
Brady:
I am grateful to the Minister. I want to make it
clear that I am happy to remain in my current post and, as he well
knows, if one were to be moved there is the danger that one might come
back to the same job at a subsequent time. I am happy to be left where
I am. I am sorry that he will be moving
on.
When the Minister
wrote his letter to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee on
21 March, it was clear that the Commission was yet to give full details
of the hearing, which is due to be the conclusion of the process. In
his opening remarks the Minister said that the hearing would be on 29
May; can he give us more information about how that will proceed and
how the debate will be
concluded?
Mr.
Hoon:
At the risk of prolonging this exchange, I hope that
the hon. Gentleman stays at his present position in opposition
indefinitely. I am glad that there is such consensus on the two Front
Benches. It is not often that I agree with the hon. Gentleman but I
wholeheartedly agreed with his sentiments on that occasion. The answer
to his question, which has just been given to me, is that there will be
a hearing on29 May for all states and third parties.
Motion made, and question
proposed,
That the
Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 6192/07 and the UK
response to the European Commission’s Green Paper on
Diplomatic and consular protection of Union citizens in third
countries submitted to the Commission on 26th March 2007;
joins the Government in welcoming the Commission’s contribution
to the ongoing debate on how to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the consular assistance provided by Member States to
one another’s nationals; but notes the legal, political and
practical difficulties to many of the proposals; and agrees with the
Government’s approach as laid out in its written response to the
Commission.—[Mr.
Hoon.]
5.2
pm
Mr.
Brady:
We have had a useful exchange; we even had some
answers during the debate, which were very welcome. Briefly, I
reiterate what I said at the outset, that the Government are rightly
seeking to protect the United Kingdom’s strong tradition of
consular provision. It is a source of particular encouragement to me,
because it is not always my experience, that they are clearly resisting
the attempts to increase the competence and range of activities of the
European Union.
I especially
welcome the proposal in the context of the issue that we touched on
during questions concerning previous attempts to create a single role
of an EU Foreign Minister by fusing the positions of the High
Representative and the External Relations Commissioner. That goes to
the heart of the matter before us: whether one can effectively draw a
distinction between the competencies and the proper role of the Council
of Ministers as representing the member states and the Commission
operating as an EU institution in itself.
It is
entirely welcome that the Minister is making such a vigorous stand for
British interests. I hope that he will have some time before moving on
to bat for Britain, as I am sure he will do on 29 May, and perhaps for
a month or so after that. We wish him well, and I shall of course, as
ever, seek to ensure that the Government maintain their resolve to
preserve consular services as a
matter principally for the sovereign states of the European Union, while
fully accepting, as all sides do, the benefits of co-operation between
member states when it can take place effectively and in the interests
of all member states
concerned.
5.5
pm
Mark
Hunter (Cheadle) (LD):
Thank you,
Mr. Pope. I welcome the opportunity to make a brief
contribution to the debate under your chairmanship. The Minister will
discover at the outset that we, too, broadly support the
Government’s approach to the subject.
It is a key principle of EU
citizenship that EU citizens should be afforded protection by other EU
member states when they are in so-called third countries. We should
therefore welcome any proposals that improve co-operation between member states
on consular and diplomatic services. We would welcome better
information for all citizens, which explained that they can turn to any
EU embassies for help in times of trouble when they are visiting third
countries where they do not have consular representation of their own.
When
the Minister winds up, will he clarify the actions that are being taken
or considered to ensure that EU citizens who visit third countries
where they do not have consular representation are aware of their
ability to access other EU consulates? Does he envisage such an
information role being more appropriately taken up or co-ordinated by
the European Commission? Does he in fact support its proposal in the
green paper to publish and update the contact details of member state
embassies and consulates as they are represented in each third country?
Having said that, we must be careful that any EU action does not breach
the principle of subsidiarity, because elements of the proposal seem to
go in that direction, as other Members have said.
On the issue of creating a
single EU representation in third countries, it is important to be
aware that there are complex and difficult legal issues at stake.
Currently, the UK, along with many other member states, has no legal
obligation to provide consular services for its own citizens or for
those of other EU states. As a matter of policy, none the less, the UK
provides services to both on a non-discriminatory basis, but it can
refuse help on an individual basis. Under existing international law,
consular relations exist between individual states, as we know from the
Vienna convention, so the provision of consular assistance by EU
institutions to EU citizens would involve many legal
difficulties.
Added to that
issue, we do not believe that there is any appetite in the UK for our
embassies and consulates to be rolled up into a single EU
representation. Certain sections of the media would like to point
mischievously to just such a proposal as the ambitions of a European
super state, and they ought therefore to be
resisted.
Mr.
Brady:
I absolutely agree that such a proposal should be
resisted, but the proposal to create EU representation in its own right
exists in the green paper. Does the hon. Gentleman agree therefore that
it is not merely an invention of the British tabloid press to suggest
that there is an ambition to increase the EU’s role in consular
and diplomatic matters? It exists as a proposal that the Government
rightly resist.
Mark
Hunter:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
The Minister made it fairly clear in his lengthy responses to the hon.
Gentleman’s questions that the Government intend to resist the
proposals. I am keen to emphasise the point the cross-party point that
we have established this afternoon, whereby we agree that the proposals
ought to be resisted. It would be wrong for anybody to run away with
the idea that any political party in this country is in favour of them.
That is the point that I seek to make.
By way of clarifying that
point, however, we must make it clear that when such issues are being
debated, it is possible to be both pro-European and conscious of the
need to maintain our national identity: federal Europe, yes; but
European superstate, no.
The high standard of consular
assistance now provided by many member states is perhaps testament that
consular assistance is best provided by independent nation states, but
we appreciate, as has been said, that many smaller EU member states do
not have the extensive influence of our own Foreign and Commonwealth
Office. With our long tradition of excellence in that field, we should
do all we can to promote the best possible system of close co-operation
to benefit all EU member
states.
In light of
that, perhaps the Minister could also tell us what action he is taking
or considering to promote that vital closer co-operation between EU
member states to ensure that, in accordance with article 20, a citizen
of the Union receives his entitlement in the territory of a third state
where his member state of nationality is not represented to
“protection by the diplomatic or
consular authorities of any member state, on the same conditions as the
nationals of that
state.”
Mr.
Hoon:
I understand that the Committee could go on until 7
o’clock. As I made my arrangements around the possibility that
it could, I thought that to fill the time, I might read out slowly the
entire Green Paper, together with its considerably voluminous
footnotes, to ensure that all of us thoroughly appreciate the debate.
[
Interruption.
]
On the other hand, I am
getting a whispered warning from the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member
for Workington, that that might test the patience of my hon. Friends,
and no doubt of the Chairman. I know, Mr. Pope, how
dedicated you are to this work and how much you would enjoy such a
prospect, but before I get around to doing it, I shall deal with the
points made by the hon. Member for Cheadle.
A new EU consular brochure has
recently been published setting out for citizens of the European Union
what help they can expect to receive from other member states’
embassies and consulates. The Government believe strongly that the
European Commission has a role in publicising such information. The
hon. Gentleman implied slightly that it would be sensible to publish
each and every member state’s representation in third countries
around the world. I suspect that that is not something that we would
want each and every traveller to receive, as burdened as they already
are by the considerable amount of necessary paperwork, but getting
across the idea, particularly in less obvious parts of the world, that
it is possible for British and other EU citizens to go to the embassies
and consulates of other member states when in difficulty seems sensible,
and I agree that it should be published.
Mr. Pope, I have
changed my mind in relation to my earlier proposal, but I am
nevertheless grateful for your presence and your willingness to
listen.
Question
put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 6192/07 and the
UK response to the European Commission’s Green Paper on
Diplomatic and consular protection of Union citizens in third
countries submitted to the Commission on 26th March 2007;
joins the Government in welcoming the Commission’s contribution
to the ongoing debate on how to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the consular assistance provided by Member States to
one another’s nationals; but notes the legal, political and
practical difficulties to many of the proposals; and agrees with the
Government’s approach as laid out in its written response to the
Commission.
Committee rose at thirteen
minutes past Five
o’clock.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 18 May 2007 |
