|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 166-i House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS committee Wednesday 13 December 2006
Developments in the European Union
Foreign and Commonwealth Office MARGARET BECKETT, ANTHONY SMITH, SHAN MORGAN
Evidence heard in Public Questions 1-102
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Members present: Gapes, Mike, in the Chair Heathcoat-Amory, David Horam, John Illsley, Eric Mackinlay, Andrew Moss, Malcolm Osborne, Sandra Stanley, Sir John Stuart, Gisela
Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Examination of witnesses: Rt Hon Margaret Beckett, Foreign Secretary Anthony Smith, Director, European Political Affairs, FCO Shan Morgan, Director, EU, FCO
Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon, Foreign Secretary, and welcome once again. We know that this is a very busy week for you, and hope that we will be able to gain an insight into what will be happening in the next few days. I also welcome your colleagues, Ms Morgan and Mr. Smith. To begin, what is your assessment of the situation as we come to the end of the reflection period on the European constitutional treaty? Your colleague, Geoff Hoon, released a written statement last week, which, I understand, contained 600 words, but never used the word "constitution". Was that deliberate and does it mean that the British Government have no view at the end of the reflection period? Or are you holding your cards close to your chest until the appropriate moment in the Portuguese presidency? Mrs. Beckett: I readily concede that I am a great believer in playing your cards close to your chest when in negotiations. However, you asked whether we are in a different place with respect to the constitutional treaty. I am not sure that we are. Undoubtedly, some people hope that we will move into one as we continue our consultations and seek to elicit the views of member states. However, at the moment, we are in much the same place as we have been throughout the reflection period. Having reflected, people might have come to conclusions and it is for the German presidency to make sense of that package of different views. By June, I believe that the presidency hopes to suggest a way forward. In no way does that pre-judge the outcome, of course. It is more a process than a conclusion. Q2 Chairman: Do you think that there will be a special intergovernmental conference to discuss those matters, under the Portuguese presidency, towards the end of next year? Mrs. Beckett: It is rather early to say because the Germans have not really begun the consultation process. At present, I do not detect a sufficiently clear consensus to suggest that they would be in that position quite so soon, but that is a judgment or a guess depending on which way you prefer to look at it. Q3 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The referendums in France and Holland that blocked the constitution took place a year and a half ago. They started a so-called pause for reflection. It has been rather a long pause and we now want to know the British Government's position on the constitution. Other member states have made clear their positions. Germany wants to revive the constitution, as does the European Commission. Members of the French Government want a mini-constitution. What is the British position? Are you content to let other people make the running? Mrs. Beckett: I think that you are right to say that the German Government have indicated that they would like to see the constitutional treaty-as was-revived, but they have been quite careful in their phraseology not to suggest that they believe that they would be able to achieve that during their presidency, or that it is in any way a done deal. That is the goal in which they have said they see merit, though. I am not sure that the French Government, as a Government, have identified a way forward. Individual members of the French Government have made- Q4 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is what I said. Mrs. Beckett: Fine. That is not quite the same as saying that that is the policy of the French Government. We are not in disagreement there. People have made clear their views. As you know, Geoff Hoon set out the principles that will inform our approach. You are right, however, to identify the fact that we have had this somewhat long pause. I cannot recall whether I told the Committee last time that our Polish colleagues informed us that in Polish, the word "reflection" comes out as "snoozing". I would not think that it is illegitimate to say that this debate has been on hold, but it is about to begin again. We are very much in the early stages; we have set out the principles that will inform our approach. I will be quite blunt: I think that at first we will go through a period wherein those who have ratified the treaty will say, "Lots of us have ratified the treaty. Is that not enormously important in itself?" I suspect that there will then be a discussion that will end up with us saying that it might be important, but it does not take account of the fact that we are still not in the same place. The French and the Dutch rejected the treaty. There may even be some-the world is full of optimists-who think that you can just tell the French and the Dutch to go back and try again. There may be people who advocate that as an option that the EU initially should pursue. I do not think that that would go anywhere. That is one of the reasons why I said to the Chairman that I am not sure that we will be ready for an intergovernmental conference during the Portuguese presidency, because I suspect that we will have a little round of people saying, "Is everybody quite sure the constitutional treaty cannot proceed in its present form?" Then people will get down to the brass tacks. Q5 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: You keep referring to other people's views and what might happen to their plans- Mrs. Beckett: We are in a partnership. Q6 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Let me finish my question. We want to know what you think of the constitution. The Prime Minister signed it and there has been a vote to take it through, so presumably the Government are still in favour of the entire constitution. Is that your position? Mrs. Beckett: I would not put it like that. I would say that, as with all treaties and agreements, there is a balance and the Government accepted the balance of the constitutional treaty, as did all member states. We accepted that we got as good a balance as we felt we could achieve at that time. At a meeting in the Foreign Office the other day, I heard Lord Patten say that there are people here who believe that the treaty will be extremely harmful to the UK, but in France they call it "La Britannique" and believe that it is actually a British treaty. Some of them argue that that is one of the reasons why the French rejected it. Yes, we accepted the constitutional treaty as it emerged from that process, but it is clear to me that that treaty cannot be proceeded with in exactly its present form. Q7 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Should you not be taking a lead on this? You seem to take your middle east policy from the Americans and your European policy from the European Commission. Britain is a big, influential country and we keep being told about the influence that we have in Europe. What do you want done with the constitution? Which bits do you like? Do you want it segmented into a mini-treaty, as French Ministers are suggesting, or do you still hold to the view that the entire constitution, having been signed by the Prime Minister, ought to be enacted if the problems arising from the referendums can be overcome? What is your position? Mrs. Beckett: No, I do not take that view. Apart from anything else, the problems arising from the referendums cannot be overcome. Quite frankly, Mr. Heathcoat-Amory, this is nonsense. There are lots of ways to negotiate in different circumstances. Standing up, beating the drum and demanding X, Y and Z does not always bring success. I speak as somebody who has had rather a lot of success in international negotiations-I am sorry if that sounds conceited. Q8 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary, what is the British Government's position on allowing the criminal justice systems in member states to move under EU competence? Mrs. Beckett: I would not put it in quite those words, but there has been a discussion on justice and home affairs, and passerelle. In fact, there has been more than one-one at the informal Council some weeks ago, and one more recently at the more formal Council. I did not attend, of course, because it was a Justice and Home Affairs Council, but as I understand it, there was no consensus in favour of such a move at the informal Council and, certainly, we have expressed grave reservations. We have not said that we have a completely closed mind because cross-border co-operation in tackling issues such as cross-border crime can be beneficial. However, we have said that we do not find the ideas being put around attractive-nor does anyone else, as far as I can see. I think that I am right in saying that the recent Council discussion was, more or less, a rerun of the earlier one, and had pretty much the same outcome. There is not a body of support for such a move. This might put your mind at rest, Sir John: I believe that Dr. Reid referred to the proposal as an "ex-parrot". Q9 Andrew Mackinlay: Mr. Heathcoat-Amory and I are at opposite ends of the pole on Europe, but when we read the official record of what has just been said, I think we will see that you stated as fact that the treaty as it is will simply not go through-or words to that effect. I welcome that because I think that it is a statement of political reality. What does trouble me, however, is that we were told that we needed the treaty for the governance of the European Union and in order to allow for further absorption and enlargement, for which I am enthusiastic. Surely, however, we need to address matters of terminology, more than anything else. We need to revisit certain questions about how to facilitate sensible enlargement, governance and the decision-making process. I am talking about an enlarged Commission and Council and how we are represented externally. We ought to be taking the initiative and reminding people in the United Kingdom and elsewhere that the history of the European Union has been one of gradual organic change, which I have always favoured because I think that it is the way forward. Finally, we are all politicians and although in broad brush terms I am very proud to call myself European, neither the treaty, nor anything like it, would get past the British electorate. That is my view. The important point was the one on organic change. Mrs. Beckett: That brings two things to mind. First, yes, we are bound to look at some of the institutional issues. For example, the current treaties bind us, when Bulgaria and Romania join, to look again at the size of the Commission. I think that I am right in saying that they do not bind us to an outcome, but they do bind us to consider it. There are things like that around in the current treaties. Separate from that, there are those who take the view-I believe that Commissioner Rehn and the Commission have expressed it-that we ought not to move to any further enlargement without some kind of institutional change. Every time that view has been expressed we, on behalf of the British Government, have said that we reject an automatic link between the notion of further enlargement and there having to be institutional change. There is a bit of a stand-off, if you like, because there are those who take the view that it means that there must be further institutional change. We don't rule out considering it, but we certainly reject the notion that without it there cannot be further enlargement. We share the view that I think you have expressed here before, which is that on every previous occasion, despite the reservations that have been expressed, enlargement has turned out to be in the interest of existing and new member states. Q10 Mr. Horam: Following from that point, Secretary of State, do you think that we are heading for a fundamental clash on future enlargement? Mrs. Beckett: No, I do not think that we are, actually. Q11 Mr. Horam: How can that be, if some nations think that there should be an automatic link between institutional change and enlargement and we do not? Surely that is a fundamental clash? Mrs. Beckett: Well, it all depends on where the majority turns out to be. At this moment I do not know where the majority would lie. All I am saying is that there are those who express the view that there should be an automatic link. It is not a view that we share-it is the Commission that has expressed it rather than a collection of member states. It may be that there will be people who see it that way, but it is an issue of great sensitivity for all member states. I would not predict that at this moment you would get two opposed, polarised views. There might be a real mixture of views, not only on whether there should be institutional change but on what the nature of the change should be. Q12 Mr. Horam: The Commission seems to be hedging its bets a bit, because it said in its paper on enlargement, published last month, that we should be "cautious in assuming any new commitments". Does that worry you? The Commission is almost coming off the fence and saying- Mrs. Beckett: No, it does not worry me, and I will tell you why. I think that it relates much more to the political dialogue about whether we have to have new criteria on absorption capacity in judging enlargement. I think that the Commission is recognising the existence of that debate. I do not wish to suggest that it is a nonsensical debate-such assessments are part of the Copehagen criteria-but the Commission is giving a grace note in the direction of those who say that this is an issue of concern. Of course, nobody is saying that we are going to rush headlong into massive expansion in the short term. Q13 Mr. Horam: No, I am sure. It is very easy to sound a note of caution but none the less, as you said yourself, there are real issues here. In your mind, what does integration capacity really mean? What does the Commission mean by all this, and what specific items does it have in mind? Mrs. Beckett: There is a bit of dispute even about the word, actually. The words used to be "absorption capacity" but the Commission decided that a better description would be "integration capacity". I understand that it means something completely different in German, although nobody has ever explained what. It is unhelpful. Q14 Mr. Horam: Obviously there are difficulties of language, but you are using the phrase "integration capacity" now in your documents. Mrs. Beckett: That is because it is supposed to be the new in-phrase. Perhaps the German presidency will change that, who knows? Q15 Mr. Horam: But what does it mean in practical terms? Mrs. Beckett: The same thing as "absorption capacity". Q16 Mr. Horam: That is not my question. Mrs. Beckett: It means: is there are problem whereby Europe simply could not cope with having new member states? I may not have been before the Committee since we had a very interesting dialogue at a recent Council in which the new Swedish Foreign Minister, who is the former Prime Minister, reminded everybody that exactly this debate occurred in the EU when the Scandinavian countries and Austria joined. The existing member states said, "Ooh, this is a large number of countries. Ooh, we can't possibly deal with all this. I am not sure that we have the capacity to deal with these issues." The Swedish Foreign Minister made the point not least, slightly tactlessly if I may say so, to the Austrian Foreign Minister: "Actually, when you joined the European Union, people expressed exactly these reservations." Q17 Mr. Horam: How we absorb the UK- Mrs. Beckett: Indeed, he reminded us that 50 members, I think he said, of the European Parliament actually voted against that particular step forward on enlargement, when the Scandinavian countries came in. So it is not a new debate; it is always a sensitive debate and it is sensible to say you do not just rush ahead at a breakneck speed. The last time that there was an attempt at the Foreign Ministers Council, and indeed I think at the Heads of Government meeting, to persuade people that there ought to be a new criteria adopted on absorption capacity it failed completely. Q18 Mr. Horam: What did they mean by criteria? Mrs. Beckett: They meant that there should be some kind of benchmarks. Q19 Mr. Horam: But they have those. Mrs. Beckett: Exactly, but they wanted something more formal, a test that could be passed or failed. The notion of new criteria was rejected by the Council very clearly and very firmly. People said there is plenty of scope for proper monitoring. Q20 Mr. Horam: So you take that as good news from the point of view of enlargement. Mrs. Beckett: Yes. Rigorous scrutiny; rigorous monitoring-yes. New hurdles to jump-no Q21 Mr. Horam: Finally, you said in your speech in the Commons the other day: "Over a period of time we could draw these strategically vital countries ever closer." What do you mean by "strategically vital countries"? Are we talking about the Ukraine, Moldova? What sort of countries are we talking about? Mrs. Beckett: Primarily, and without remembering all of my own speech, I was thinking of Serbia and the Balkan states. Q22 Mr. Illsley: Turning first to Turkey and maybe then to the Balkan states, to look at specific examples, the Commission has decided to suspend negotiations on eight of the chapters and I think the UK's view that there should be a suspension of only four was overruled. Mrs. Beckett: Three. Sorry to interrupt. Q23 Mr. Illsley: The fact remains that our view has been overruled and obviously there is a frustration with the attitude of Turkey towards negotiations and towards their obligations to the customs union, although they did offer to open one port and one airport. Do you think that offer was genuine or do you think it is perhaps time now to regard Turkey as not really seriously addressing its obligations in terms of EU membership and the customs union? Mrs. Beckett: I do not think it is time to do that. Perhaps I could say where we are on the issue of the chapters. The Commission, as you say, proposed to suspend eight chapters. As the Committee may know, there were a number of voices who thought that was inadequate and wished to suspend more. In some cases, substantially more. We expressed the view, which was again shared by quite a number of member state colleagues, that there were wholly justifiable objective criteria for suspending three and that it would be very difficult to argue that those three were not directly related to Turkey's failure to implement the Ankara protocol. Doing more than that would be a subjective decision and you could argue about which others should be suspended. So it is not so much that we were overruled as that we expressed a view. We did not express the view that there should be no reaction to Turkey's failure to implement the protocol but we felt that there was an objective basis for one set of decisions and less so for others. There was a negotiation. We and some others were at one end of the spectrum and there were others at the other end of the spectrum. As happens so often on these occasions, people came down roughly in the middle, which is where the Commission had pitched themselves. It always goes down well at the Council when you say "I support the Commission." That is where we are. Then, as you say, Turkey made, relatively informally, a proposal to the Finnish presidency. I do not take the view that the Turks were not serious about it but I think that it was late on in the process. If these ideas had been explored earlier, there might have been more scope for judging whether that made a difference to the approach and scale of the Council's decision. As it was, it was really too close to the wire, and so people were aware of the fact that this offer had been floated, but there really was not time for it to be assessed and for people to consider what the reaction might be. Q24 Mr. Illsley: Do the Government accept that there is a linkage between the Turkish implementation of the protocol and the question of direct trade with the northern part of Cyprus? Mrs. Beckett: No. The issues of linkage can be quite sensitive. The Committee may not be aware of one of the things that the Council did-it was not a matter of linkage. There were three separate sets of proposals before us on Monday: the main item on enlargement, with which the Committee will be familiar; a presidential statement, which tried to encourage the recommencement of the UN process of negotiation; and, separately to those, there was a set of Council conclusions, or potential conclusions, which then became a minute of the meeting, on proceeding with the development of trade and economic links with the northern part of Cyprus. The Committee may recall that in the past the Council has decided that there should be aid flows, and they have begun. However, less has been done on the issue of trade, the economy and so on. There was a minute statement on that, and it will come to the Council as conclusions in January. Q25 Mr. Illsley: Do you think that the Republic of Cyprus is playing a positive role in the accession? Mrs. Beckett: The Republic of Cyprus was very clear and firm-all member states were-that it supports the accession of Turkey to the European Union. Of course, like many around the table, they had concerns over some issues, and over whether we were making enough progress on some of the agreements. Q26 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary, I was very concerned at the mounting tide, which seems to be running in a number of EU countries, including some of the major states, against allowing the Turks to achieve the reality of entry to the EU. Has not that position significantly deteriorated since Cyprus' entry into the EU? Is there not a fundamental mismatch in the negotiating position between the Government of Cyprus and the Turkish Cypriots, with all the negotiating strength being in the hands of the Republic of Cyprus? Do you see any way of redressing the balance? Mrs: Beckett: Strictly speaking, this is not a matter for the EU, it is a matter for the United Nations. Deputy Secretary-General Gambari was in Cyprus fairly recently, I think. Mr. Smith: In the summer. Mrs: Beckett: In the summer. Has he reported to the Security Council? Mr. Smith: He will. Mrs: Beckett: Mr. Gambari will be reporting to the Security Council on the outcome of those talks. It is a UN process. However, yesterday, on the basis of the presidential statement, not Council conclusions, the Council expressed the hope that those negotiations will proceed and that they will be fruitful. Q27 Sir John Stanley: It may be a UN process, but it is an issue on which the EU has a huge responsibility and which concerns not least the British Government, who have, rightly, been extremely positive in support of Turkish entry. Surely there is a critical need to give more reassurance to Turkey that its objective of obtaining EU entry is actually achievable. Is there not a real risk that if such reassurance is not given, Turkey is going to give up, with hugely adverse, long-term strategic consequences for the EU? Mrs. Beckett: I apologise, Sir John. I focused on the second part of your question and forgot the first part. You are absolutely right that it is very important to give Turkey the right signals of reassurance to indicate that there is a desire to include it in the EU. You are right to say that in some quarters of public opinion throughout the European Union, there are people who are showing greater or lesser concern about the long-term implications. However, it was clear on Monday, and was clear on the previous occasion when we discussed Turkey specifically and the issue of enlargement generally, that there is considerable support among the Governments of member states. They recognise the exact point that you made about the strategic importance of Turkey. I found it noticeable that people increasingly recognise that Turkey is potentially an energy corridor into the EU. They recognise that there is already co-operation on issues such as cross-border migration, co-operation that hopefully we will deepen. Turkey is potentially a very important partner on such issues. One matter that was most evident from my recent visit to the middle east, and which the Committee will know from its own experience, is the degree to which Turkey is a player that has links not only with the EU but with the wider middle east. That could be of immense strategic assistance and support to the EU, given the sheer weight of knowledge, experience and understanding that it brings. Q28 Chairman: Can we move on to some questions on the Balkans? Mr. Illsley: Croatia's EU membership application has been supported by the British Government and by this Committee. Will it join eventually? Do you expect it to be the last of the former Yugoslav republics to join? Mrs. Beckett: No, I do not expect that, to be honest. You are right that we support Croatia's candidacy, though I do not say that membership will come in the next five minutes. The position is very similar to the one that I set out in my conversation with Sir John-namely that it is important for stability and potential stability in the Balkans for it to be clear that there is scope for other Balkan states to become EU members in the fullness of time. That is also the genuine position. The reason is similar to the reason for all the other enlargement processes having ultimately been so successful: there is nothing like the prospect of joining the EU and having to meet EU standards, to stimulate reform in a potential member state. Q29 Mr. Illsley: The German presidency has said that it looks forward to implementing the outcome of the final status negotiations on Kosovo. Are you anywhere near to being optimistic that that can be achieved in the next six months, so that the final status of Kosovo can be determined? Mrs. Beckett: As you will know, former President Ahtisaari postponed his report until after the Serbian elections. I understand that he expects and intends to produce it quite shortly thereafter-he does not intend there to be a substantial gap. We shall see what the reactions are, but I would not be surprised-and it may be in everyone's interests-if there were a resolution in the next six months. Is that realistic, Shan? Ms Morgan: Yes. Q30 Mr. Illsley: The Germans are also saying that there could be a need for the biggest ever European security and defence policy mission in that area. Are we confident that we could live up to our obligations and commitments for any such mission? Mrs. Beckett: To a certain extent, that is not a matter for me. However, I can assure you that we would not take on any commitments that we did not think we could fulfil. Q31 Ms Stuart: Can I quickly follow up on Kosovo? When the Committee visited Finland, it raised the matter with Russia. The Russians said that if we were to give independent status to Kosovo, it would be the first former non-state entity to be given such status. Russia foresaw problems with that, particularly in relation to Nagorno-Karabakh and the rebellious areas on Russia's borders, in that independence for Kosovo could fuel independence movements elsewhere. Has that been discussed between Foreign Secretaries or is it currently left to the presidency? Mrs. Beckett: It has been discussed, because there are those who feel that that is an issue. We shall have to see how the discussion develops, but the point that you have mentioned clearly needs to be taken into account. On the other hand, we might argue-as might other states-that there is not a parallel. If that can be made plain, the difficulties might not arise or might be overcome. Q32 Chairman: But is it not the case that the Russians will be strongly supporting the position of the Serbian Government, both bilaterally and within the UN, while at the same time Albania will be pushing strongly for an independent Kosovo and that there is no basis for a compromise between the two positions as they exist at the moment? Perhaps you are rather optimistic to think that we might have a solution in six months. I understand that the German ambassador to the EU described the situation as putting two and two together and coming up with 9.7. Mrs. Beckett: The EU has always been rather good at that. Q33 Chairman: Is it realistic to think that we will find a political solution, or are we going to have to push something through that will be unacceptable to one side or the other, or possibly both? Mrs. Beckett: As the Committee will be well aware, we are in a promontory position. You are quite right: Russia takes a particular view and will support the stance of the Serbian Government. Others have a different point of view. I am happy to say that that is not a conundrum with which I currently have to wrestle; Martti Ahtisaari is wrestling with it. We hope to know the conclusion that he has come to not too far into the new year. Q34 Chairman: I suspect that we will be coming back to the issue sometime in the new year. Mrs. Beckett: I should not be at all surprised. Q35 Chairman: We will move on to discuss Bulgaria and Romania. Sandra Osborne: Foreign Secretary, you stated earlier that you felt that the current accession criteria are adequate and that no further criteria should be introduced. However, in the case of Bulgaria and Romania, the Commission set up a mechanism to consider progress in judicial reform, corruption and organised crime. In the light of that, do you feel that the current criteria are indeed adequate? Are you satisfied that Bulgaria and Romania are ready for accession, given the problems on those matters? Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I do think that they are. Indeed, the EU as a whole took that view precisely because of the process that you described, which the Commission is monitoring. Of course, there is a stark difference here. Do we say that there should be a completely new hurdle for would-be applicants to jump, or do we have enough room to deal with problems within the strong set of criteria and conditions that we have? The Council's judgment, which I accept, was that we do have enough room. We have the scope to say, "There is still an issue here, and we want to monitor it and mentor you" and that there must be focus on a particular matter. The Commission can set up special mechanisms for that. The balance of the Council's judgment was that we could go ahead with accession on that basis, although there had to be particular attention to certain issues. Q36 Sandra Osborne: What would be the consequences if, after a period of time, adequate progress had not been made? Mrs. Beckett: It would have to go back to the Council, and we would have to consider whether there needed to be safeguards. That is an issue that goes back to the general point that I was making about enlargement in answer to Mr. Mackinlay. Enlargement provides a huge pressure and incentive for reform. Q37 Sandra Osborne: When the Committee was in Bulgaria and Romania, it became quite clear that their Governments had taken offence at the restriction that the UK was going to place on people coming from there following accession. What is your estimate of the effect that that has had on the relationships between the UK and Bulgarian and Romanian Governments? Mrs. Beckett: There is obviously concern, and they would have preferred us not to take that decision, but they understand why we did. The UK always has been and still is among the staunchest supporters of their membership of the European Union. That is recognised, and it outweighs this issue. Q38 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: On the worker registration scheme, which we hope that people from Romania and Bulgaria will sign up to, is there not an obvious contradiction between that and the free movement and residency that they will get in three weeks' time? In April this year, the Government passed into law the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, which grant everybody in the EU-including Bulgaria and Romania-an unrestricted, unconditional right of residence, with access to education and health care and all the rest of it from the moment that they come in. Are we not getting the worst of all worlds? We are annoying the Governments of the two countries by trying rather ineffectually to slow down the rate of workers coming here, and hoping that they register. On the other hand, that collides with the right of residence here. It is not going to work, is it? Mrs. Beckett: I do not see any reason why it should not work, because there is a difference between freedom to move, which they have, as we do, in the European Union, and unrestricted freedom to work in a particular member state. A number of member states-I cannot recall how many-have imposed exactly that kind of distinction on some who are already members of the European Union, having joined at the last enlargement. We did not do that on the previous occasion; we have done on this occasion. It is evident that it has worked and is working in the EU as a whole. Q39 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The complaint is not about people coming here to work legally; it is about people coming here to work illegally, or not working and drawing benefits and getting health care and so on. That is exactly what they are going to get under the regulations that have already been passed. We are going to make it more difficult for them to work because we are going to require them to register and to pay a fee and tax. We are trying to do the impossible, which is to restrict what we want them to do, even though they have a complete right to come here and do what we do not want them to do. Is that what you mean by a Europe that works? Mrs. Beckett: Do I understand you to be making the argument that we should not put any restrictions on their right to work? That seems to be the force of your argument, and it is not a view that the Government share. Q40 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The force of my argument is to have a clear policy. Mrs. Beckett: We have. Q41 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The force of my argument is that you either stop people coming here to live and draw benefits and accept health care-and work-or you have the completely open-door policy that is granted in the regulations. However, what you have is a hopeless contradiction between two principles. That does a lot of damage to our international reputation in those two countries, which we all visited in October, without actually restricting immigration, which is what the Home Secretary said he wanted to do. Mrs. Beckett: As you know, the restrictions that were imposed will be reconsidered after a year. I take it from what you are saying that you will then be arguing for them to be lifted. Q42 Mr. Horam: Just to continue the focus on eastern Europe for a little longer, the Ukraine ambassador to the European Union told the press last week that Ukraine cannot accept being treated "in the same way" as other non-European countries. He was referring to the European neighbourhood policy, which has recently been enlarged and developed by the Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy to give it extra dynamism. Clearly, there is a danger in trying to do something well meaning-bringing the Mediterranean littoral states into a closer relationship with Europe-on the one hand, and treating seriously the important candidates of the future, such as Ukraine and Moldova, and giving them the feeling that they are the same as Algeria, Jordan and all the rest of those countries. Is there not a problem there? Mrs. Beckett: I hope that there will not be a problem. I can see that there could be, but the incoming German presidency wants to see whether we can strengthen our neighbourhood policy in any way- Q43 Mr. Horam: What is it designed to do? It seems very vague. There are countries going as far as Algeria-Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all. Mrs. Beckett: I think that it is designed to try to avoid a situation in which the EU looks like a fortress with a big wall around it. It is saying, "You are not a candidate for membership-nor are you likely to be in the near future-but our arms are not closed to you. We are friends; you are our neighbours and we have interests in common." Q44 Mr. Horam: But that clearly gets up the nose of such countries as Ukraine, which considers itself a serious candidate-admittedly not now, but in the not-too-distant future. Mrs. Beckett: As I was going on to say, there is merit in the neighbourhood policy in itself. Again, it can be something of an encouragement towards reform. We would certainly be very unhappy if it appeared that, in future, neighbourhood policy was going to be used as a substitute for membership by those that have the potential-in the longer term, I accept-to apply to become members. We would not support that. Q45 Mr. Horam: Are we going to make that clear? Mrs. Beckett: We have always made that clear; we have said it specifically on many occasions. Q46 Mr. Horam: Going on to Russia, as we are considering eastern Europe, do you think that the European Union-Russia framework agreement is likely to get back on track at the Council? Mrs. Beckett: Frankly, I do not know. It depends rather on discussions at the Council. I suspect not, perhaps; it may be a little early. But as you know, there are concerns that are not totally related to the issue of the partnership agreement as such. I am not yet sure whether they can be overcome. Q47 Mr. Horam: What is your view of the situation with Russia? The business with Mr. Litvinenko has obviously been a problem for us; clearly, the Russians are not co-operating with our attempts to find out exactly what happened. Equally, they are being extremely difficult with our ambassador in Moscow-well, extremists are involved, although we do not know who is behind them. The ambassador is being harassed daily. That must cause difficulties for our relationship with Russia. Mrs. Beckett: Let me separate out the two. There have been very unacceptable incidents involving our ambassador-not, of course, involving agents of the Russian state. However, there has been unacceptable harassment, which we have taken up officially with the Russian Foreign Ministry, which assures us that it will look into any harassment of the ambassador, his family and so on. Q48 Mr. Horam: And get it stopped. Mrs. Beckett: Hopefully, yes, get it stopped. Quite separately, you referred to the Litvinenko case. I do not take the view that the Russian authorities are not co-operating with us. As you will know, I spoke quite early on to my colleague Sergey Lavrov when it first became apparent that there would need to be inquiries. I was assured then that the Russian authorities would co-operate with whatever inquiries were necessary-within the framework of Russian law and the Russian judicial system, of course. The Metropolitan police went out probably about a week ago, and I understand that there is co-operation. I am certainly not complaining about non-co-operation from the Russian authorities on this case. Q49 Mr. Horam: My colleague Sandra Osborne mentioned that we had recently been in Bulgaria and Romania. What was evident in those countries, which are coming into the European Union next year, was their concern about the attitude and hostility of Russia to the European Union, not only on energy policy-on which Russia is rather obviously playing a sort of game with Europe-but more broadly on political issues. That is a real problem for us, is it not? Mrs. Beckett: I know that last year there were concerns, not least on energy policy-although not on energy policy towards the European Union. However, there were concerns about Russia's energy policy. You spoke about Russian hostility to the EU; that is not how I would describe the relationship. Indeed, I know of a number of occasions, over quite a period of time, when President Putin has been quite open-in, relatively speaking, private conversation with people-about the importance of Russia's relationships with the European Union. I do not think that the issue is that simple. I can understand countries such as Bulgaria and Romania being nervous about their relationships with a country that for so long was an important player in that part of the world and is again so now-indeed, it never ceased to be an important player and is perhaps even a player of growing importance, for a variety of reasons, such as energy, as you mentioned. But no, I do not take the view that the relationship is one of hostility; in fact, there are many areas in which there is substantial work on developing co-operative policies. Q50 Mr. Horam: I think that what the people in those countries were drawing attention to was the fact that President Putin may mouth words, but in places such as Transnistria and Ossetia in Georgia his agencies are causing real difficulties for countries that are either in the European Union, or might be in the future, for his own political purposes. He does not seem to care what happens on the ground floor. He pursues his national interests vigorously, while mouthing all these words about being friendly to the European Union. There is a clear distinction. Mrs. Beckett: All countries pursue their national interests and hopefully most countries do so vigorously. Yes, there have been issues lately between Georgia and Russia in particular, but we have been at pains to urge calm and restraint on all sides. Q51 Chairman: Before we move away from the neighbourhood policy, Mr. Mackinlay wants to come in. Andrew Mackinlay: I think that there is an immediate crisis affecting Malta. I do not raise that out of fairness to little Malta, but there seems to be a European crisis, concerning the enormous refugee, asylum and illegal immigration problem that Malta faces. Is there not therefore a case for immediate crisis talks and a review of the Dublin treaty, so that there is a proper spread of the burden, which unhappily will be a growing burden, with pressure from people from sub-Saharan Africa wanting to get into the European Union? This has not featured on the radar screens much in London, but to ignore it would be foolhardy in the extreme. Mrs. Beckett: It would, and indeed we do not ignore the problem at all. You are quite right, Mr. Mackinlay, to identify the fact. The problem is self-evident, and there is a shared concern and history with Malta, but it is very much a concern not only for Malta-although I accept that it is a particular problem for Malta-but for the states bordering the Mediterranean and for other islands, such as the Canary islands and so on. The issue is a source of real difficulty and anxiety. I believe that there was a meeting a few weeks ago to try to discuss these issues and to see whether there are steps that we can collectively take, because as you say, it cannot be right that the burden simply falls on individual states and everybody else just ignores it. But we are approaching the issue within the framework of the global approach to migration. I know that this is not much help in the short term, but in the end the only answer is the pursuit of the policies of sustainable development, which has been a key goal of the European Union for a long time, so that the economic and other pressures that drive those migration flows are eased. Q52 Chairman: Thank you. Can I move you on to some questions about the security and defence policy, and the common foreign and security policy? Is there a real crisis in relations between the European Union and NATO over the development of these areas, particularly given the NATO Secretary-General's recent remarks? According to the publication EU Observer, he said: "We need to break the deadlock between the EU and NATO". That seems to be quite a bleak assessment of the current situation. How do you see those relations, and is this issue going to be discussed in the next two days? Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that that is terribly likely, although-I am just looking through my latest version of the document-I suppose that the issue could come up under a discussion on external relations in Afghanistan, but I doubt it. A little bit depends on how the flow of conversation goes in the Council, but I am not expecting that to be a major discussion at the forthcoming Council. I would not myself call the situation between the EU and NATO a crisis. I am afraid that I had not picked up this remark about breaking the deadlock, but I would not characterise the existing situation as a deadlock or a problem between the EU, as such, and NATO. As we all understand very well, some of the countries that are members of NATO are also members of the EU, but the obligations that they have to NATO are in that forum, so I do not see it as a stand-off between the EU and NATO, as if they are two different sets of people. Q53 Chairman: Is it not a problem that NATO and the British Government want a much bigger commitment from some of our EU and NATO partners, particularly the Germans and the French, with regard to the serious work in Afghanistan? There are differences between our Government and the French Government over the development of the European Defence Agency. There are also publicly expressed differences between the Dutch Defence Minister and the French over issues relating to the development of the common defence policy in the European Union. Is there not a danger either of duplication or of deadlock and an inability to take decisions because of such disagreements? Is it not about time that the issues were seriously discussed in the EU Councils, rather than being deferred? Mrs. Beckett: That is quite a string, if I may say so. I will try to deal with it. Of course there were talks during the summer about whether it was possible to get more resources of various kinds-kit rather than people, I think-for Afghanistan. Some progress was made, although not as much as we would have liked. You talked about a much greater commitment. I am not sure that people were necessarily seeking a much greater commitment; I think in some cases they were seeking a greater degree of flexibility in the commitments that had already been made. If I recall correctly, there was a certain amount of change and shift there. I am happy to say that I am entirely innocent of knowing anything of any differences in opinion between the French and the Dutch Defence Minister, and I hope it is not wrong of me to say that I cannot get very excited about it. When it comes to the agency, we are very mindful of the dangers. I do not think that deadlock is so likely, but we are very mindful of the dangers of duplication. We are certainly keen to make sure that that is avoided and that we have a set of complementary strands, rather than something that is in conflict. As you quite rightly said, there are dangers. I think that there are two dangers: one is that the strands could be very different and the other is duplication. We will try to avoid either and, up to now, we think that we can. Q54 Chairman: Is the German presidency going to make any progress on its aspiration to move towards a long-term goal of a common European defence, which is in its priorities paper? Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that it will be discussed, but I am not sure how much progress it is likely to make. I think it will depend on how great are the concerns among member states, which I know is self-evident. I am not sure that I see it as an area in which we are going to see a great leap forward under the German presidency. Q55 Chairman: Thank you. We will now move on to China. Ms Stuart: Before we move on to China-this is a Thomas Cook tour of the world-I would like to leave you with a thought. We were in Afghanistan talking to the military. Flexibility is quite often a code word for national caveats, but members of the military said that it was not a question of lifting national caveats. They just want more boots on the ground. Let us move on to China and the Chinese arms embargo. In some countries, symbolism is much more important than in others. Symbolism is very significant for China. The Government and, to some extent, this Committee have recognised that lifting the arms embargo and replacing it with a code of conduct on a rational level may be more effective on the ground. However, given that China is not complying with quite a number of measures regarding human rights violations, lifting the arms embargo-and the symbolic significance of that gesture-is quite a high risk. I should be interested to hear what position the UK Government would take if that were brought back to the table and whether we should lift the arms embargo. Mrs. Beckett: It is not clear to me whether or not it will be. It was discussed, although quite briefly, at the Council of Foreign Ministers, but long enough for two or three quite clear statements to be made, among which was the view that we should proceed with the code of conduct and another view, which was that you could only proceed with the code of conduct if you also lifted the arms embargo. Basically, the conclusion of quite a short discussion was that we can make no progress on either of these things. So, that is what happened on Monday. I have not heard any indication that it might be raised again; it could be, and whether there is any scope to make any progress if it is raised again I do not know. There was not a sufficiently long debate to get a feeling as to how entrenched the different points of view are. I would suspect that we might not make progress, because it was almost more a matter of people saying, "Oh, we know all about that debate. We're not going to resolve it here today and there might well be the same reaction at the European Council. Yes, good point. We knew it was an issue-but not today." Q56 Ms Stuart: Just one observation. I picked up in French press cuttings that the French were unhappy with the status quo. Mrs. Beckett: Yes. I do not think that there is any doubt that the French are unhappy with the status quo, but whether there is a body of opinion that wishes to resolve it in the direction that they would choose is quite another matter. Q57 Chairman: Is not the problem that there are different national interpretations of the current EU arrangements with regard to both the embargo and the code of conduct? Mrs. Beckett: I suppose that it is quite possible. I will readily admit to not being familiar with the detail of what those differences might be, but it could well be so. However, I do not get the feeling that it is at that level of detail. One can only report on how one reads a meeting and the approach of colleagues. I get the feeling that maybe there are differences and maybe they would emerge if one got into it in greater depth. But it is much more as Ms Stuart suggested-it is the symbolism that concerns people. Q58 Chairman: We look at this through the Quadripartite Committee, which will no doubt be saying something about that in the near future. Q59 Sandra Osborne: What discussion do you expect to take place at the Council on the situation in the middle east? Mrs. Beckett: I am not entirely sure. I would think that we will have a report back on the latest developments, if there are any-let us hope that there are. We are likely also to have a report back from Benita Ferraro-Waldner on how things are going with the temporary international mechanism and the humanitarian work, and how the substantial aid that the European Union is putting into the people of Palestine is being handled. I think that we will probably get all of that, and I think that people will express their wish to see the peace process revived and their willingness to help to facilitate that in any way that it can be done. There is a recognition of the moves in Israel to make statements that have not been made in the recent past-about extending an arm to Palestine-and also a recognition of the desire of President Abbas to put together a Government of national unity. As we speak, those negotiations seem to have stalled again. Of those who have participated, some continue to insist that they are prepared to return to the negotiating table. So, I expect that that is the kind of tenor that there is likely to be in the discussion, along with a recognition of how crucial and important it would be if we can make moves in that area. Q60 Sandra Osborne: I believe that the temporary international mechanism has been extended for another three months. Do you see any progress with regard to lifting the embargo on aid to the Palestinian Authority or any moves or negotiations for aid to go directly to them? Mrs. Beckett: For the revenues to flow, you mean? Sandra Osborne: Yes. Mrs. Beckett: I see progress in that I think that there is a recognition in Israel that moves to begin work on the peace process, meetings and so on would mean that the issue of the flow of revenues would be very much on the table. I think that that is recognised and might even be accepted. The difficulty that we have is that there are those who have a kind of stranglehold over whether or not there are any steps that could push things forward a little with the peace process, and it is not yet clear that they want to release that stranglehold. Q61 Sandra Osborne: In relation to the US Administration, following the Prime Minister's visit to Washington and the Iraq study group report, do you think that they are poised to up the ante in terms of their involvement in the peace process? Mrs. Beckett: I think they share the view that we have long expressed that this is a crucial and important issue. I have increasingly been using the phrase that resolving it for the peace of region would not be sufficient, but it is necessary. They are like everyone else. We are all, if you like, held hostage to people who do not appear to wish to see peace in the middle east. Everyone is trying to find levers, methods and pressures that can be exerted to try to alleviate that situation. Q62 Mr. Moss: Foreign Secretary, returning to the point that was raised a little while ago about the aid that the EU gives in the current year to the Palestinians, which I believe to be something like €651 million, and the agreement in recent days to continue that at a pro rata rate for the next three months, do you believe that the EU should be more proactive in seeking positive outcomes for those contributions, or do you believe that it is a no strings attached gift of aid to the Palestinians? In regard to those outcomes, what is your personal view of what the EU should be doing or is doing, for example in preserving the ceasefire in Gaza and ensuring the return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers under UN resolution 1701, as well as fully implementing that resolution with regard to Syria and the rearming of Hezbollah? Mrs. Beckett: First of all, on the issue of the flow of aid and so on, in a sense I would argue that we are pretty proactive. The resources are not just handed over. Initially the resources were specifically for health care because it was felt that there was potential for a short-term serious crisis in health care. As time has gone on and that has been amplified, resources have begun to be put into the education sector and to supplement incomes among the most vulnerable. Money is not just being put in without any regard for where it is going. It is going to specific areas where the EU believes that the problems are the greatest and where we can be most effective in being of help and support. As you know-one touches wood, I think-there is a ceasefire in Gaza and it appears broadly to be holding. We are doing everything we can to encourage and support that. Similarly, I do not think that any player, whether in the middle east, across the Atlantic or in the European Union-with the exception of one or two, but including pretty much every player on the international scene-is not doing everything they can, and using every lever and opportunity that comes to mind, to urge the release of the Israeli soldiers. That is one thing that could begin to trigger the peace process, which the vast bulk of people in the world would actually like to see. With regard to resolution 1701, again, the EU is very active and very involved. We-when I say we, I mean the EU-are a major component of UNIFIL. Although we do not have soldiers on the ground, countries like our own are giving a substantial amount of technical assistance and support, which I know is both needed and welcome, and which we continue. For example, when I was in Lebanon a few days ago, I announced extra money to fund the clearing of minefields, cluster bombs and so on. I had feedback only today from a colleague as to how much that has been welcomed and how valuable it is. So the EU is active-is proactive-in these things, but what we try always to do, and what in particular we the UK try to do, is to make sure that we work with and through the parties rather than going round the parties, because whatever contribution we can make can be most effectively made with and through the directly concerned parties themselves. Q63 Chairman: May I take you further on your reference to the Lebanon? Is there concern among your fellow Foreign Ministers about the potential implications of the current crisis in Lebanon for the stability and security of the Italian, French and other EU troops that are in Lebanon at the moment? Is there the potential that they might have to be withdrawn because their mandate is not a very robust one and that they may find themselves between a renewed conflict or some form of crisis which makes their position untenable? Mrs. Beckett: I do not think anyone is going that far in their consideration at the present time. I am in no doubt that within individual member states there are discussions; certainly there is great concern about the implications of the crisis in Lebanon and dismay that in a country that has a great need for peace, stability and reconstruction there appears to be a concerted attempt to destabilise a Government who were elected comparatively recently. I think that is at present the focus of people's concern. When I was in Lebanon, the point that I continually made to every media outlet that asked for my view was that I thought the top priority for the people was, indeed, the reconstruction of their country rather than the deconstruction of their Government. Q64 Chairman: But it is a very worrying situation. Mrs. Beckett: It is a very worrying situation. I am quite clear that it can be resolved; one must hope that it will be. Q65 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary, a few weeks or months ago there appeared to be the start of some quite promising negotiations between Hamas and the Fatah Palestinian Authority. There appeared to be at least the glimmer of a prospect that a joint Government might be established there who would bring about the recognition of Israel and a commitment to peaceful means of resolving the issues with Israel. Do you see any signs of that development taking place? Do you think that the EU has a role in bringing it forward? Mrs. Beckett: I am almost inclined to say, "What is the answer to that question today?" because on different days one would give a different answer, as I am sure you recognise. Of course, that is something with which we are all, sadly, very familiar. You are absolutely right, Sir John, that there were what looked like very hopeful signs of a potential negotiated outcome for a Government of national unity. We as the UK and we as the EU did everything we could to encourage the formation of such a Government based on the Quartet principles and made it clear that we would not only be willing but anxious to work with such a Government, if that were at all possible, in order to begin to address what is a very difficult and dangerous situation. Yes, there have been positive signs but more latterly there are again more negative signs. The EU has tried to encourage and support a negotiated approach and the notion of a Government based on the Quartet principles-whatever that Government might be. However, it has always made it plain that revenues from wherever will flow to those based on the Quartet principles. That is key to the decisions that negotiating parties have to make. It appears to me that those negotiations have stalled because they have not been able to resolve some of those issues, which is unfortunate because, clearly, there is the potential for an agreement, if there is the political will. Q66 Sir John Stanley: May I come back to Lebanon? I welcomed your recent visit there. Did you get the impression from that visit that the political activity that Hezbollah had been driving in recent weeks will rectify a genuine unfairness in the electoral system and political structure, which fails to give Hezbollah fair representation, or do you think that this was the first part of a bid to topple the Government and to bring in a Hezbollah Government with, say, Syrian backing? Mrs. Beckett: I am always cautious about reaching a judgment on the position in another country and on another Government. However, fortunately, no crystal ball is needed because a number of statements have been made by, for example, Sheikh Nasrallah. Over the weeks, he made some initial statements, then went quiet and then he made some more. It is his desire and intention to topple the Government. One must recognise that that statement has been made. I commented in Lebanon that each Lebanese player to whom one speaks reads at least a different nuance, or, if not, has a different interpretation of the Lebanese constitution. There are disputes about what the constitution says, what it means, what the implications are and so on. That underlies some of the disputes, although, as I said, a clear statement was made saying that they want to get rid of the Government and the Prime Minister. As to the goal, apart from recognising that that had been said in public, I also told my interlocutors that I had been informed clearly and explicitly that it was neither about Syrian influence in Lebanon nor opposition to the international tribunal, which the Lebanese Cabinet recently decided to accept. Everybody, including Hezbollah, accepts it as well. My response was that it was very heartening to hear that no voices in Lebanon resisted such a tribunal, but that unfortunately the international community had got a different impression, and that the view of the rest of the world of those very difficult developments needed to be factored into political understanding in Lebanon. Q67 Sir John Stanley: May I turn to Iraq? Do you envisage a role for the EU in trying to broker a degree of understanding and a settlement between the Shi'a and Sunni factions concerning the fearsome militancy? Mrs. Beckett: If I saw a role for the EU, it would be to encourage the Government of Iraq to continue with and to step up the process of national reconciliation to which they set their hand some little time ago. The EU may be able to make helpful noises, but I see two issues. On one hand, I fear that there is the need to resist external interference in the internal disputes and difficulties in Iraq, and that may be something on which the European Union can put helpful pressure by alerting people to the dangers of such outside interference. Over and above that, however, if one could diminish that dangerous outside interference-it is in danger of becoming counterproductive to the long-term interests of those countries most directly involved, namely Syria and Iran-the chief role that the EU or anyone else can play is to encourage the Iraqi Government to take those issues on. In the end, it is only the Iraqis who can reconcile one with the other and come to an understanding of the future direction and prosperity of their country. Q68 Chairman: I turn to Iran. Where are we with regard to the draft Security Council resolution? I understand that the Chinese and the Russians did not find the original draft acceptable and that it has been watered down and resubmitted. Is there disappointment in the European Union, especially among the Germans, the French and ourselves, that despite all those efforts over such a long period we are no further forward? What will happen, given that the Iranians have missed the deadline of 31 August and do not seem to be inclined to co-operate? Are we doing anything about it? If so, what? Mrs. Beckett: We are continuing to discuss a resolution in the Security Council. I do not rule out the fact that we might get such a resolution before Christmas. Is there disappointment? Well, marginally perhaps, in that when one comes to it people will say, "We could do this" and others will say "How about that?" There are different points of view. If you think back to the agreement that we made in Vienna, which was before my first appearance before the Committee, it was specifically that, if we were driven, and only if we were driven-we wanted to negotiate-we would go back to the Security Council; we did not want to have to do so. But we received no response. We agreed that, if we had to go back to the Security Council, we would do so on the basis of steps that were as cautious as we could make them, as reversible as we could make them, and clearly designed to send a signal that the door was still open for negotiation. We wanted to create an incentive for Iran to come to the negotiating table. It is around the precise definition of those terms that discussion continues. However, I say slight disappointment because I do not think that any of us were under any illusions. When you start to discuss such issues, there is a huge amount of technical work and wrangling and discussion among experts, on which I freely confess none of the Ministers are engaged, about exactly what this bit means, and so on. So I am not really surprised that it has taken time. For me, the key thing will be if we are able to get a further unified resolution from the Security Council. That is what has taken Iran by surprise every time so far. It expects the unity of the Security Council to fracture. It has not done so. I hope that it will not do so. Q69 Chairman: If you get a resolution, will it have any teeth, or will it just be a declaratory position without real sanctions? Mrs. Beckett: I think it will not simply be a declaratory position. Q70 Chairman: Do you think it likely that that will be agreed in the near future? Mrs. Beckett: I hope so. Discussions are continuing, but I do not rule out a resolution before Christmas. Q71 Chairman: Thank you. Let us move on to Afghanistan. Sir John Stanley: Some of us were in Afghanistan about three weeks ago. We had a meeting with the EU's deputy special representative. It is clear that the EU is putting a substantial amount of money into Afghanistan, and I am sure that that is very welcome. Do you see any wider role for the EU in political and governance terms in Afghanistan, or are those areas best left to those who are more actively involved-NATO, the United Nations and, bilaterally, the US? Mrs. Beckett: As you say, the EU is supportive and helpful. We are always conscious of that. One of the things that we would be happy to see among fellow EU member states would be a greater involvement in building up the capacity of the Afghan authorities and institutions; for example, by training, mentoring and giving people experience. We would be happy to see them playing such a role, and would encourage them to do so. Q72 Chairman: Thank you. May we move to energy policy. Mr. Horam: Can we turn back to the European Union, perhaps with some relief after this tour d'horizon? Since you became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, you have given priority to climate change and energy security. Are you satisfied that the discussions and reviews that are going on inside the EU are giving sufficient priority to security of energy supplies, as opposed to other considerations? Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I think so. I accept that it is slightly early days, because for many colleagues, the concepts of climate security and energy security-two sides of the same coin that we have been discussing and promoting for some time-are slightly new. However, the recognition of their merit and importance is growing. The Stern review, in the European Union as outside it, has made an enormous contribution to that discussion. As I see it, there are both a recognition of the huge importance of energy security and a willingness to move forward on it. As I am sure the Committee knows, the German Government have indicated that they will give a high priority to such issues in their EU and G8 presidencies. Q73 Mr. Horam: You said just now that the focus on such issues was new to other European countries. You seemed to be slightly leaving behind some of your own colleagues. Last month, in a speech in Brussels, Mr. Wicks, the Minister for Science and Innovation, said, "I cannot emphasise enough the importance of the Single Market to our EU Energy policy". That is not the same as energy security. There is often incompatibility between energy security and the single market. Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that I would argue that there is an incompatibility between them. The Government have long argued that we need to properly implement the approach to the single market, and that we need to open up energy markets within the European Union. Q74 Mr. Horam: That is not the same thing as energy security. Mrs. Beckett: No, it is not, but I am sure that if Malcolm Wicks were here, he would be the first person to say that that does not mean that he is not in favour of energy and climate security. Q75 Mr. Horam: You might be slightly out of date in the language that you are using. Mrs. Beckett: I think that, uncharacteristically, you are being a little unfair to my colleague, Mr. Wicks. He understands the issues very well. Whatever we do in terms of energy sources and energy efficiency to help us to achieve energy security, there is also a belief that, from the point of view of the EU consumer, there is much to be said for opening up the single market and lifting some of the restrictions. I would have to think about it, but I do not see the two as mutually incompatible. Q76 Mr. Horam: Again, to come back to the issue of Russia, we know that Russia tried to blackmail the Ukraine and other European countries last winter over the supplies and prices of oil and gas and so forth. There is a real worry that it will play a rather aggressive role in Europe. It is important-as was again brought home to us when we visited eastern Europe-that Europe has a clear, stand-together energy policy to deal with that. Do you think that that is emerging from all this? Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that everyone sees the events of last winter in quite the way that you have described. I know that the Russians do not. There are two things that I would say about your description of last winter's events. One is that Russia argued then-and would still argue today-that what it wanted was a fair price for the energy resources that it was supplying. The Russians had attempted-I am speaking from memory now, but I think that this was their argument-to get a better negotiation and what they thought would be a more satisfactory outcome in terms of mutual rights and responsibilities and they had failed. It was not a matter of blackmail but a straightforward commercial issue. Secondly, I have a clear recollection that at the time great surprise was expressed by the Russian authorities that people thought that the commercial breakdown, as they saw it, with Georgia-sorry, with Ukraine-had any relationship to their ties and links with the European Union. That was a totally different issue. I think they saw the contract with the Ukraine as a hangover from past structures and relationships that had not been resolved and was therefore in a completely different category. Q77 Mr. Horam: None the less, their behaviour did spark the failure- Mrs. Beckett: It did create alarm, but I know that the view was expressed that they were surprised that that alarm was created. They did not see their commercial relationships with the European Union in anything like that light. Q78 Mr. Horam: I am surprised that you say that, because it seems to me slightly naive to suggest that there was no element of the old Russia flexing its muscles. That is certainly the view in eastern Europe. Mrs. Beckett: I did not say that there was no element of that. I said that the Russians saw it in a different light and that it did not have a bearing on Russia's energy relationships and links with the European Union. Indeed, at the Lahti meeting in October, President Putin reaffirmed that any energy relationship between Russia and the EU should be based on the principles of stability, transparency and predictability. Q79 Mr. Horam: I hope that you are right. Mrs. Beckett: I am telling you the policy of the Russian Government, as set out by the Russian President. Q80 Mr. Illsley: This question follows on exactly from what John Horam said. You do not feel that the Russians are giving themselves or having thrust upon them a more enhanced status because of their control of energy supplies than perhaps they would otherwise deserve? Mrs. Beckett: No, I do not think so. Russia is a major power and a major player in the world. It always has been and always will be. It is just a player in slightly different fields than in the past, before it was recognised that it had access to energy. I do not think, from any other point of view, that there is a difference in that sense. Q81 Andrew Mackinlay: When you were in south-east Europe-as Mr. Horam said, this was raised with us-one of the things that was put to us was the absence of an EU energy policy and criteria in as much as there were complaints about Germany unilaterally doing deals with Russia. I do not think that anyone can complain about Russia, but there is a lack of communitaire, if you like, of Germany bypassing the EU and coming to that arrangement for supplies. To be fair, presumably Germany can do that because there is a void in EU regulations and our structures and institutions that means that that cannot be dealt with. I was a bit bewildered. Mrs. Beckett: I do not know whether it is a bit harsh to say "a void", but there certainly has not been a clear EU approach to energy policy. Of course, that is exactly why the energy Green Paper-I think it is a Green Paper-was produced. That is something that people are working on now with a view to getting such a framework for an EU energy policy. I accept that it is not an area that has been properly resolved in the past, but work is continuing. I do anticipate, for all the reasons that we were just discussing, that it is an area where we are likely to get some moves forward in the not too distant future. Q82 Chairman: In the time left to us I would like to ask a few questions about our relations and diplomatic representation in Europe. We received a letter just over a month ago from Geoff Hoon, who pointed out that changes are "in prospect to our network in Europe", including proposals to reduce a number of our posts in different countries over the next five years. Can you elaborate on what is envisaged? He also said that consideration was being given to "options to centralise...passport and visa issuing functions in Europe, following the introduction of biometric passports and visas." What will that mean? Does it mean that people in, let us say, Tallinn will have to go to Warsaw or that people in southern Europe will have to go somewhere else? Does it mean that we will operate it all from a few centres or that we will just close a few extra consulates and other posts in some European countries? Mrs. Beckett: I cannot yet answer all those questions, not least because the decisions have not yet been made. I cannot elaborate all that much on Geoff's letter, because this is, as I say, work in progress. Given that resources are never unlimited, and they are not likely to be substantially greater in the future, a decision was made that we had to look again at the FCO's network of posts, embassies and so on to see whether it actually fitted what were going to be the priorities for the period ahead. A decision was taken, for historic reasons that I think we all completely understand, that if we had to make a choice-if we could just add people, that would be lovely, but we cannot-it should reflect the fact that we have been perhaps rather top heavy in our representation across Europe, where we now have stronger relationships and do a great deal of work, for example, through the representation in the centre, in Brussels. That makes a difference to how many people you need on the ground in Europe, at exactly the time when-I think that this is something that has been welcomed by the Committee-we recognise that we very much need to expand our representation in emerging markets and emerging powers, such as China and India, to name but two-it is not just China and India. So a decision was taken that we had to reshape where we put our resources, to put them in the places where we envisage they will be needed in the years ahead. As I say, the details of what that will mean are being worked through. I will also freely confess that I do not have any more detail regarding the phraseology about centralising our passport and visa-issuing functions. Again, that is work in progress, and it is being assessed, but I entirely take the point that you are making about how far people might have to travel. But I ought perhaps to stress at this point that although we might be looking at centralising some of our visa issuing facilities, we will be maintaining consular representation wherever we can. Q83 Chairman: If your colleagues are working on these proposals, perhaps they could come in and tell us how they are being worked up and what the timetable will be. Mr. Smith: Could I hear the last bit of your question again, Mr. Gapes? Q84 Chairman: What will the timetable be? What work are you doing on these things? Mr. Smith: As the Foreign Secretary will know, these discussions and studies are part of the comprehensive spending review preparations and negotiations. Internally among officials, we are preparing proposals to go to the FCO board and Ministers in the new year. The exact extent of the changes that we would propose will, in the end, depend a bit on the outcome of the comprehensive spending review. So some of those issues will need to be discussed through the course of the coming year. The visa and consular issues are being dealt with separately as part of a range of changes that the people responsible are considering to improve the service in delivering visas to those who need them and services to British citizens overseas. As the Foreign Secretary said, the intention is to maintain the extensive consular network so that we get the best possible service at the front end, but also to consider centralising some of the back-end functions, such as the production of passports, so that they can be carried out more efficiently. Q85 Chairman: Is there any proposal to consider the fact, which I raised on the Floor of the House a few weeks ago, that there are some countries in which the Department for International Development is present but we do not have a diplomatic representation? Kyrgyzstan was one that was mentioned, but I believe that it also applies to some places in Africa. Is it possible that we might move towards more joined-up Government by having a British post, which might be open for three hours one afternoon to issue visas to people in a country in which we do not have a full diplomatic mission? Mrs. Beckett: I think that the answer to your question is that we are certainly considering what we could do more effectively in terms of joined-up Government. Whether your specific proposal might emerge from such scrutiny is another matter, but we are certainly considering the way in which we and DFID work across the world. Q86 Chairman: Do you share my frustration that your budget is capped, and you are closing and reducing posts in some countries, whereas the Government are as a whole spending a lot more abroad? It is not helping you in your representation. Mrs. Beckett: You may say that, Mr. Gapes; I could not possibly comment. Q87 Chairman: I see, right. I will take that as a yes, then. Q88 Sir John Stanley: We have already come across posts in European capitals where there is anxiety about whether they will be given the people to be able to do the job, particularly on the trade side. There were concerns about threatened cutbacks when we went to Helsinki, for example, and again when we were in Prague. The point that was made to us, which seems to have a lot of cogency, was that yes, there are developing markets elsewhere, but there is a huge value of business being conducted between the UK and our European partners. That is where very high-value export opportunities still lie. The second point that was made to us, with which I also agree, was that the so-called hub-and-spoke concept simply does not work in trading terms. You need to have people on the ground in a particular country with local contacts and command of the language. You simply cannot run a successful trade mission out of a country hundreds of miles away. Hub and spoke simply does not work in trade terms. Mrs. Beckett: These sound to some extent like UK Trade and Industry issues, and of course UKTI is a joint enterprise between ourselves and the Department of Trade and Industry. I take the point, and there are two issues here. One is whether we will have the people to do the job. We will always try to have the people to do the job, but we may not always agree what the job is that we need to have people to do, and that is where part of the answer to your main question lies. I take your point entirely: of course there will be places where a lot of high-value business is done, and there are still high-value export opportunities and so on. It seems to me that, particularly when resources are not unlimited, our emphasis should not just go where there are opportunities, which businesses can perhaps readily exploit for themselves because they are development markets. Our expertise and support should go where they are really needed because there are not alternative structures and there are fledgling business opportunities. In an ideal world one would not have to choose between the two, but if we have to choose, it seems to me that we should be concentrating our resources where the help is most needed and where we have most value, because we are in a growing market. In the more mature markets, in which that specialist help is perhaps somewhat less needed, we might have to draw back a bit. Q89 Mr. Horam: Just to re-emphasise your point, a number of us have just returned from a trip to India, which as you know is growing at a yearly rate of 6 to 8 per cent.-very extensively. Those of us who went to Mumbai were quite taken by the fact that although we have very good people there-the new deputy high commissioner is a woman, which is rare in Asia-they have totally inferior offices. That is because they are in a very severe situation, and unless you and your office make early decisions to relocate those commission facilities, they will be at a serious disadvantage when doing their work in the trade area-Mumbai is the New York of India, if I can put it like that-and when carrying out their consular and other activities. There are also questions of security, about which we will write to you. We would like publicly to lobby you about that point on behalf of the commission because we were very concerned by what we found. Mrs. Beckett: I find that very interesting, Mr. Horam. I share your view of the excellence both of the deputy high commissioner and the staff whom we have in Mumbai, who are doing a tremendous job. I agree that there is an enormous job to do there- Q90 Mr. Horam: Early decisions are required. Mrs. Beckett: I heard what you said. May I invite you to copy your letter round the Government? Q91 Chairman: We will send it in and hope that the matter is resolved before the comprehensive spending review- Q92 Mr. Horam: Mr. Illsley will be writing to you about that. Q93 Chairman: In the short time that we have left, I will bring in David. Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: May I move on to the subject of transparency? The former Minister for Europe proposed that all Council of Ministers meetings should be held in public, but when you came into your new job you drew back from that and took a much more cautious approach. The Committee commented on that apparent volte-face in our July report. Now that you have had time to reflect, do you have any further views? I put it to you that if we were to get out ahead on the issue of transparency, we might stir the interest of the public, who find these European institutions remote and mysterious. Do you not think it would be a good idea to have a position of maximum public scrutiny and observation of that decision-making body? Mrs. Beckett: You and I have disagreed about this before and probably will do so again, as neither of us is likely to change our view. One of the things we dispute is exactly what the Government proposed before I became the holder of this office. I do not dispute that as the British presidency, we argued for greater transparency, and I wholeheartedly support that. At the first Council meeting that I attended, the Austrians went substantially further, however. As the presidency, they proposed that every bit of legislative debate and discussion should be held in public. As I spent six out of the last 10 years engaged in Councils that actually do legislative business, which, with great respect, is unlike the General Affairs Council, I had concerns about the proposal and asked for it to be reconsidered. A decision was made by the Council, on the initiative of the Austrian presidency, that the issue would be looked at again in six months. The Finns have done that and have come to the conclusion that it is worthy of re-examination, but that it is not possible to come to much of a view in the comparatively short period of six months. They have promulgated the notion that there should be a thorough examination and monitoring of the implications of how we handle the issues, with a further report back to the Council in about a year's time. That is what I expect will happen. I would like to put one more point to you. You are right that increased transparency could stir greater public interest, although I personally take the view that nothing is more likely to bring the common agricultural policy, for example, into disrepute than broadcasting the meetings of the Agriculture Ministers in all their full, riveting detail. But I accept that there could be benefits from such a proposal. Before I moved to this post, I was quite heavily engaged in discussions and negotiations around the Doha round. People sometimes tend to overlook the fact that not all the negotiations in which the EU is engaged are solely within the EU. The notion, which was seriously proposed by some people during the Doha round discussions, that we should all happily sit round the table spelling out to our negotiating partners in the United States and the developing world exactly what the EU's bottom line was going to be did not seem to me to be well judged. I hold by that view, which applies not only to things such as the WTO, but to issues such as climate change. Q94 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Do you think that virtue might start at home? The European Scrutiny Committee, an allied Committee of this one, sits in private in its weekly deliberations on EU business. Do you think that we might change our own procedures? Do you have any views on that? Mrs. Beckett: No. I am always extraordinarily cautious about having views about how Select Committees of this House should operate, and I do not propose to change now. I was the Leader of the House for three years, and I have more sense than to comment on such things. Q95 Andrew Mackinlay: I think that we had correspondence with your Department about the overseas territories citizens this year. Could you update us on this? If you recall, we are concerned that there might be an alteration that would require citizens of six Caribbean territories to have visas to travel around Europe. At one stage, it looked as if the Home Office was ploughing on without having consulted your Department. What can you tell us? Mrs. Beckett: I do not have the list of countries here, and it may be that that is something that you want to explore with us. I can tell you that we have got agreement that holders of British passports-these comprise many, if not most, of those involved-who are deemed to be full British nationals should not and will not face an EU visa requirement. For example, there will be visa-free access to the British national overseas passport holders who are resident in Hong Kong. It has also been agreed to remove the obligation for a visa for the British subjects and British overseas territories citizens who have a right of abode in the UK, but there remain some British overseas territories, and a few British subjects, in respect of which visas would still be required. Basically, it comes down to the fact that except in respect of, at most, a few hundred British overseas territories citizens who are not British citizens and some British subjects, the proposals now mean that the Schengen visa requirements are pretty much in line with UK visa requirements. Those whom we would require to be subject to immigration control will also be so required in the European Union. Broadly, the Schengen regime will be similar to the one outside. Q96 Andrew Mackinlay: I do not mean this in any rude way, because you have told us all that you can tell us today, but we need to know why there are- Q97 Chairman: Perhaps we can get a letter from the Secretary of State on the detail. Q98 Andrew Mackinlay: Yes. We have jealously to safeguard even the rights of those few hundred whose Parliament we are ultimately. They may have local legislatures, but we are all they have got. They are not represented here, so they are dependant on us. We need to be told why we have these exceptions and who they are. If the exceptions are so small, why are people being left so exceptionally out in the cold? Mrs. Beckett: It is small with regard to overseas territories citizens. It might not be quite so small with regard to some British subjects. I repeat that my understanding is that the basic criteria is that if they are subject to immigration controls in the UK, they will also be subject to immigrations controls, visas and so on in the EU. I take your point entirely. We have substantially improved the original proposals, but it is a little difficult for us to argue that people on whom we impose immigration controls may not have them imposed on them by the European Union. Q99 Andrew Mackinlay: Indeed, point taken. Perhaps that is why we need to be told, because we are their Parliament. Mrs. Beckett: You need more detail, but I do not have it here with me. I am sorry about that. Q100 Andrew Mackinlay: They are not represented here. Pitcairn East does not have a Member. Q101 Chairman: Finally, Foreign Secretary, your memorandum to us said that you want Africa, including Darfur, to feature prominently in discussions. I would be interested to know whether you think that will be the case. If so, is there any prospect of a new European Union initiative to deal with Darfur? There has been speculation about no-fly zones in Darfur, and the Prime Minister mentioned those on the radio this morning. Is there any prospect of an initiative being taken to deal with this awful situation? Mrs. Beckett: That is quite a difficult question to answer, to be honest, Mr. Gapes. Normally, I would say that I do not think that there will be, although we would like a discussion on Darfur. But as we no longer have to have an extensive discussion on Turkey and the enlargement, who knows to what the Council might turn its attention. We will be looking to see whether there are opportunities for us to raise the issue. Unfortunately, we go back to a conversation about Darfur that we have had many times-if things carry on as they are, we will have this conversation again-because there appears to be growing resistance on the part of the Government of Sudan to international involvement to help to resolve the difficulties there. I am sure that you saw, as I did, recent reports of appalling attacks on people who are there to help the people of Sudan and Darfur. The situation shows little sign of improving at present. In the United Nations, as much as in the EU, there will be a growing demand, I fear, for action, unless the Government of Sudan can be brought to see that the range of people in the international community who are now expressing the view that the situation cannot continue is remarkable. It is almost universal, but it is not having the effect that one would hope. Q102 Chairman: On that rather gloomy point, we thank you and your colleagues for coming. We have covered a wide spectrum of countries in not only Europe, but every continent of the world. We wish you all the best in the negotiations. We will be interested, when we visit the German presidency next year, to find out the outcome.
|