Examination of Witnesses (Questions 65-79)
MR JIM
MURPHY MP, MR
ANTHONY SMITH
AND MS
SHAN MORGAN
4 JULY 2007
Q65 Chairman: Welcome, Minister. We are
very grateful to you for maintaining the programme that we had
set for your predecessor. Maybe you will want to introduce your
officials?
Mr Murphy: Shan Morgan is the
Director of EU in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Anthony
Smith is the Director of European Political Affairs in the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office.
Q66 Chairman: We know you have studied
the brief but you have two senior advisers with you. If at any
time you wish them to participate in the evidence session we would
be most happy for them to do so. We have been taking evidence
on the Annual Policy Strategy document which of course is the
document that the EU Commission sent out as an indication of what
will become, when it is finalised, the annual work programme for
the next year. It is the first time that the Committee have decided
to try to get that far ahead of the process of directive making,
regulation making and other matters coming from the EU. We have
shared it with the chairs of all the other select committees and
we have taken evidence from people from outwith the government
and we obviously want to hear the government's opinion on the
Annual Policy Strategy document. The second part of our business
is to look at the conclusions of the European Council which have
been the subject of a statement of the Prime Minister on the floor
of the House but continue to be of great interest to this Committee
and to those who are interested in the relationship between the
British government and the EU. Can we start with the Annual Policy
Strategy document section of our interest? How useful a document
is the Annual Policy Strategy for the UK government?
Mr Murphy: Thank you for your
kind words and your welcome. We think it is a very useful document
because it does set out a snapshot of what has been sought to
be achieved over the year. It comes out of the Commission strategic
objectives, the five year plan of work. In a dynamic which the
Committee will be well are of in great detail, the dynamic of
negotiations and European politics, what it helps to do from my
looking at it over the past few days is to keep the Commission
on track. There is a plan of work that is intended to last for
that year and it can, if it operates effectively, prevent drift
and endless new initiatives dominating a new weekly agenda. On
that basis I think it is a positive thing.
Q67 Chairman: The previous European
Minister, Geoff Hoon, who is now the Chief Whip, described the
Annual Policy Strategy document when he went to the Lords before
a Lords Committee, so it is on the record, as an aspirational
document. What is the value of an aspirational document and would
it be better to link the policy ambitions in the policy strategy
to the budgetary resources allocated to them to make it more than
aspirational?
Mr Murphy: It would be a good
idea as a Minister new in this job to agree with the now Chief
Whip. On the specific about it being an aspirational document,
my sense of how it works is that it is published; there is a period
of conversation; Member States offer their observations and it
is open to a degree of flexibility in its formulation. In that
sense I think it is fair to describe it as aspirational, certainly
at its point of initiation. There is probably a case to be made
as to whether it can be more closely aligned with the budgeting
round, but the budget does take account of the APS. Most of the
budget is spending commitments that are inherited across years
rather than initiated in a new year. That is the proper alignment
in terms of the budget.
Q68 Jim Dobbin: Welcome to your new
post, Minister. I hope you have a long and prosperous career.
Do you think the Commission initiatives match the priorities that
the UK government would really like to see pursued during 2008?
Mr Murphy: Thank you for your
welcome. It gives me an opportunity to continue a shared European
aspiration that both Mr Dobbin and myself have in terms of our
affection for a football club from Glasgow in Europe. I am hoping
to last longer in the job than our football team does in the UK
Champions' League anyway. In terms of whether it matches our aspirations
and priorities, in a series of important ways it does. We have
concerns and we will work through our concerns with the Commission
but the heightened importance of the environmental agenda is really
very important for the UK government. The focus on international
sustainable development is positive, as is the focus on better
regulation. I used to be a better regulation minister in the Cabinet
Office and it was difficult to finish a full speech on better
regulation when the audience were still awake, and that was not
just because of the way I delivered it. It is a really important
agenda for our domestic economy and for Europe's economy. I think
the assessment from the Commission is that it can contribute over
1% of growth as a consequence of better regulation. That agenda
of better regulation and flexible labour markets is really in
tune with what the UK would wish to see as part of the APS.
Q69 Mr Cash: The question that worries
a number of us is the question whether there are any initiatives
which ring alarm bells. There are questions, for example, as to
why it appears that in this Annual Policy Strategy there is no
reference to a mandate, which appears to be unprecedented, attempting
to bind the Member States, which one would have expected to see
in this sort of document. We have not seen it before and it has
never been acted upon before. Is there an undisclosed document,
which I am given to understand there is, which purports to bind
the British government behind the scenes which has not yet been
released?
Mr Murphy: This will be the first
of our many conversations about these issues.
Chairman: I am trying to clarify. I am
not quite sure whether ----?
Mr Cash: I am concerned about the fact
that under the Annual Policy Strategy—
Chairman: Rather than the IGC? I thought
the two were merging into one. We will come to that.
Mr Cash: I think the question relates
to whether or not in the Annual Policy Strategy you would have
expected to have seen a mandate which related to the manner in
which questions relating to the IGC would be conducted.
Q70 Chairman: Is there a document
that links the Annual Policy Strategy document to the IGC in a
binding way?
Mr Murphy: Not that I am aware
of. If there is, I will come back to Mr Cash.
Q71 Chairman: On this question of
alarm bells, the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality
which are mentioned in the Annual Policy Strategy document, does
the government have a view as to how that should be dealt with?
Is that an alarm bell area for the government?
Mr Murphy: As you know, we remain
absolutely committed to the principle of subsidiarity. In the
APS there are two or three issues where we are not convinced that
the Commission's competence is maintained. We will continue to
press. We may discuss this in more detail but there is the issue
about the dreadfully titled CCCTB, the Common Consultative Corporate
Tax Base. There are issues about consular assistance and about
an EU wide database on fingerprinting. Those are some of the issues
where in terms of the APS we think we have some work still to
do.
Q72 Chairman: Do you hear the quiet
ringing of alarm bells somewhere off in the future?
Mr Murphy: I think we can get
to a position where we can silence those alarm bells by proper
negotiation.
Q73 Kelvin Hopkins: Congratulations
on your appointment as Europe Minister. I hope we will have many
debates in the coming months and years. During the inquiry there
has obviously been some debate about what the policy strategy
is for but also how it should be developed in the future. A number
of commentators have argued that the Commission should take a
more strategic role, setting the direction for the EU. Article
4 of the Treaty on the European Union says, "The European
Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus
for its development and shall define the general political guidelines
thereof." Is there a hint that the Commission is seeking
to aggrandise even more power to itself than it already has? Should
we not be ringing alarm bells and suggesting that, however tenuous,
the European Council at least has some democratic status?
Mr Murphy: Thank you for your
welcome. Certainly we would not wish to see competence creep on
behalf of the Commission. The first part of your question was
how should the APS develop. In time to come—and there is
an element of this in this version—there should be focus
on delivering some of the things that we have spoken about for
a prolonged period rather than generating a whole set of new ideas.
There has been some debate—I have read some material about
this—about how does the Commission communicate better its
work, successes and everything else. My sense is that it is not
just a communication issue; it is about delivery. No amount of
communication can offset any failings in delivery. Therefore,
across the EU, we have to deliver on the issues that are important
to us: better regulation, flexible labour markets, a dynamic economy,
issues of the environment, international development. It is delivery
that will lead communication. It is a perception that Europe is
delivering that will lead to people's perceptions of Europe changing.
You cannot communicate a positive message unless delivery is strong.
There has been progress in recent years but we can go further.
Q74 Kelvin Hopkins: That is a fair
point but our new Prime Minister in a very welcome statement yesterday
suggested that we ought in Britain to have more openness in debate
about our future, more power, more status for the legislature
as against the executive. Would this not do well in Europe as
well with a much more open discussion amongst democratically elected
people, perhaps in the European Parliament, perhaps prime ministers,
about the future of Europe, rather than behind closed doors in
the Commission?
Mr Murphy: You will correct me
if I am wrong. We have seen an extension of codecision in recent
years which is welcome. When we get to the point of the agenda
where we are talking about the IGC and the reform treaty, there
are important changes there in terms of greater power for the
first time ever for Member State parliaments. There have been
some positive steps. I listened to Alan Johnson and others about
what more they think can be done in this field. Without getting
into the detail of every announcement, there was a very strong
sense of greater say for citizens in some of the things the new
Prime Minister spoke about yesterday.
Q75 Kelvin Hopkins: Will you personally
be doing your best to make sure that the European Union is as
democratic as possible and that we do not see the bureaucratic
creep that is hinted at here?
Mr Murphy: We have to be conscious
of where there may be an agenda to go further than we should.
We have to be vigilant about that. I have mentioned three already
in terms of the APS where we are not convinced that they should
be contained within the APS.
Q76 Chairman: It does seem to me
that we could either interpret the Annual Policy Strategy document
as the European Commission trying to determine the political direction
of the EU, or we could see it as a bottom up process whereby things
come through from pressure groups, Member States, external lobbyists.
We also know that there are individual Commissioners who have
their own ambitions. What is the government's view of this present
Annual Policy Strategy document and also exactly what should the
balance be between the EU Commission giving a clear, political
direction—in other words, so we know what they are intending
to do—or having an Annual Policy Strategy document as aspirational,
a list of all good things that may or may not go into the work
programme? What is the balance to be struck? What participation
in this do you think the UK government should have? What democratic
involvement should there be from both the Parliament and outside
bodies?
Mr Murphy: This is the view of
someone who has been in the job now for three full days. My sense
is that Europe does not need more aspiration. It needs more delivery.
That is about agreeing a set of priorities and doing our best
collectively to stick to them. The APS process coming out of five
year strategic objectives, is the way of doing that. If we were
to get rid of the APS process, which I know you are not advocating,
or the strategic objectives process, the Commission and the process
generally would be subject to prevailing winds of contemporary
sentiment that would blow it off course in terms of things that
are important for the UK. They are important to our constituents
in all sorts of different ways.
Q77 Mr Clappison: You have my sympathy
in getting to grips with the complexities of Europe in three days.
I would like to ask about one important issue on the political
direction of the Commission. I think you would agree there is
an important change which has been envisaged in the role of the
European Foreign Affairs Commissioner in that his role has been
merged with that of the European Union's Higher Representative
to create a new, institutional figure. How would you see that
working?
Mr Murphy: What I see it as absolutely
not being is the UK surrendering its responsibility and power
on foreign policy. This is about a Higher Representative who will
speak for the EU on areas where there is common purpose and common
policy. It is not someone who will generate a foreign policy for
the EU. It is not someone who would speak outside the competence
of an agreed position by Member States. I very much welcome it.
I think it will lead to more effective articulation of a policy
where there is an agreed policy. Let us remember this policy is
based on unanimity.
Q78 Mr Clappison: It is in effect
a foreign minister, is it not, who is representing the EU rather
than having an EU Commissioner and a Higher Representative with
two different roles?
Mr Murphy: It combines the functions
of the two different people who are there currently.
Q79 Mr Clappison: Given that the
EU will now have a legal personality, the Foreign Minister will
be able to conclude treaties, will he not, on behalf of the EU
or the EU will be able to conclude treaties?
Mr Murphy: The EC has had a legal
personality for many years. In preparing for today, there are
all sorts of things to read and I had read that this person would
take the UK seat at the Security Council and all sorts of other
things. That is not the case.
Chairman: I did say to the Minister that
we would have two distinct areas of interest. We are talking about
the Annual Policy Strategy document and we are now wandering quite
far into the conclusions of the Council. Would you mind holding
the questions until we get to that point?
| 
