|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 166-ii House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
Tuesday 19 June 2007 RT HON. MARGARET BECKET MP, ANTHONY SMITH AND PATRICK REILLY Evidence heard in Public Questions 103 - 206
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday 19 June 2007 Members present: Mike Gapes (Chairman) Mr. Fabian Hamilton Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory Mr. John Horam Mr. Eric Illsley Mr. Paul Keetch Andrew Mackinlay Mr. Malcolm Moss Sandra Osborne Rt hon. Sir John Stanley Ms Gisela Stuart Richard Younger-Ross ________________ Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Rt. hon. Margaret Beckett, A Member of the House, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and Patrick Reilly, Head, Future of Europe Group, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, gave evidence. Anthony Smith, Director, European Union, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was in attendance.
Q103 Chairman: Good afternoon, everybody. Before I begin I ask everybody, particularly members of the public, to switch off their mobile phones, put them on silent or take the batteries out if there is a problem. We do not want any interruptions. Thank you. Foreign Secretary, I welcome you to this important session today. We know that you have been very busy-we have been reading about it in the newspapers-and we are conscious that the next few days will involve an intense period of negotiation. Perhaps you could begin by introducing your colleagues and then give us your take on where we are at the moment before the coming few days of negotiations. What is the current situation? Margaret Beckett: Thank you, Mr. Gapes. I think that Anthony Smith has appeared before the Committee on previous occasions, and Patrick Reilly is one of my more expert colleagues on the detail. We are hoping that between us we will be able to deal with your questions. As to where we are at present, I would make a couple of points. First, the Committee is probably aware that this has been quite a long drawn-out process. At present, as is usual with such events, nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed. But two shifts that one can detect have taken place. On the one hand-it may surprise the Committee to learn that this has been relatively recent-there is now an acceptance and understanding that those member states that have had and lost a referendum are not in a position to, and will not, resubmit the constitutional treaty to their people to be voted on afresh. That understanding is not welcome to all the members that have ratified, and has caused concern, but I think that it is now accepted and understood. Also, there is some indication that there is a recognition that that may lead to an amending treaty in the conventional style, rather than to a constitutional treaty. Perhaps I should emphasise to the Committee at the outset that, for those that have ratified, the issue is genuinely politically difficult. When such issues have been referenced or debated in Council, or if people have touched on them, there has been a tendency to talk about those member states that have a problem. I think that it is now realised that actually everybody has a problem-in particular those such as the Spanish Government, for example. They had not only a referendum, but a resounding yes result, and experience real difficulty in being asked to go back to their people and say, "I know that we told you that this was all great, but it may not actually happen in quite that way." That is basically where we are. With regard to anything more concrete on the content of an amending treaty, we are no further forward in terms of detail than we were. I presume that all Committee members know that there was a dinner of Foreign Ministers on Sunday night-it was a Council meeting, although a little more informal than usual such meetings. We talked about the constitutional treaty issues. We did not talk about them during the normal session of the General Affairs and External Relations Council on Monday, so the only discussion was on Sunday night. The presidency produced a report to facilitate that discussion-on Thursday, I think? Patrick Reilly: Yes. Margaret Beckett: The previous Thursday. The report was extremely short. The front page said that the issue was difficult and that it was important for the whole European Union to get it right and so on-that kind of thing. There were another almost two sides of A4, which, to summarise them a little cruelly, said, "Some member states have ratified. They like the constitutional treaty and want the changes that the constitutional treaty envisaged. There are other member states, some of which had a referendum and lost, and they have concerns about the contents of the constitutional treaty, so there remain considerable disparities of view." That was about it, so it was on that basis that we had an exchange of the views of member states on Sunday night. But I can only say to this Committee what I said to the European Scrutiny Committee about a week ago; I do not think that Mr. Younger-Ross is here-[Interruption.] He is; I beg your pardon, Richard. I was expecting to see you somewhere else for some reason. I said to the European Scrutiny Committee that nothing that I would characterise as negotiation has taken place. If this Committee wants me to explain what I mean by that, I will. Q104 Chairman: We shall come to the detail in a moment. You referred to the Spanish Government. Spanish sources are reportedly very surprised and shocked at the position being taken by our Government. Should they be? Margaret Beckett: I set out that position in slightly more detail perhaps, on Sunday night, but only on the fact that in the United Kingdom we are adamantly of the view that an amending treaty is required. We have been saying for a considerable period that that treaty should be very different from the overall constitutional treaty and should not have the characteristics of a constitution. That should not have come as a surprise, but, for some, it appears to have done so. Q105 Sandra Osborne: Secretary of State, you have stated that there are quite different views within the European Community on the way forward for institutional change ranging from minimalist to maximalist positions. There seems to have been a range of discussions; there are those who would be happy with a sort of road-map look to the future with quite a relaxed time scale, as opposed to those who wish to see substantial agreement in the European Council with a view to putting into practice a new agreement by the time of the European elections. What is the chance of the Council agreeing to an intergovernmental conference that would open its doors in 2007? Margaret Beckett: Actually, that is one of the things that I should have said, so thank you. Part of the proposal put by the German presidency, along with its report on its discussions with member states, was to identify its belief and proposal that there should be an IGC beginning and ending under the Portuguese presidency-in other words, a short IGC that can be terminated with agreement by December. It has indicated, and so has the Portuguese presidency-not surprisingly-that that would require a very detailed mandate. It would like to achieve a very clear understanding by all member states of what the IGC will consider and seek to agree, so that it can be done, and a mandate that is so defined as to not permit the reopening of a whole lot of other issues that were not agreed as part of the mandate of the Portuguese presidency. That is challenging. Q106 Sandra Osborne: If it was not possible to reach agreement on that, what would the UK Government see as the way forward for the process for institutional reform? Margaret Beckett: I think that an awful lot depends on the circumstances in which an agreement was not reached. If it appeared that we were very close to an agreement but that there were nuances of difference, that would be one set of circumstances. If it appeared that people were wide apart, we would have to think about where that left us. At this point, I think that it is important to say to the Committee that, in the past, there have been comments from various quarters that if the European Union cannot get an agreement, there will be a huge crisis and that the EU will no longer be able to function. I think that the last few months have shown that that is not actually so. The EU is functioning and has, indeed, reached some quite far-reaching decisions, such as the decisions on energy policy and climate security and other decisions of real day-to-day benefit to European citizens. Another example is the decision on mobile phone roaming charges. The EU is continuing to work, but, having said that, I do not dispute that if we could tidy up the rule book, it could be made to work more efficiently and effectively. However, it has not ground to a halt so far, and it is not the case that it would do so automatically. Q107 Mr. Keetch: Foreign Secretary, you mentioned the referendum in your introduction and you said-I am paraphrasing you-that those countries that had a referendum and lost did not want to go back with another referendum. You mentioned also that those countries that had a referendum and won also had difficulties with agreeing to something that was less than what they had. The UK has not had a referendum on anything. Should I take it from what you have said that you would not come back to Britain after the summit and recommend anything that you do not believe would require a referendum? Margaret Beckett: I am not sure whether we have got our negatives right there, but I know what you mean. Q108 Mr. Keetch: Okay, let me put it again. Are you saying that you will not agree to anything that you think would have to be put to the British people in a referendum? Margaret Beckett: The Prime Minister has made very clear what our red lines are and said that we would not agree to breach those red lines. We believe that those red lines would indeed be below the threshold that would trigger a referendum. Can I correct or add to something that you said at the outset? I mentioned the other member states that had held referendums and lost; to be fair to them, they are not saying "We do not want to have another referendum," although that may well be their view. What they are saying very clearly is "We will not put back to our people the treaty on which we have had a referendum, to be re-endorsed." That is a slightly different approach. It may well be that they would prefer to avoid a referendum but what they are really saying is "We will not submit a second time a treaty that has once been rejected." Q109 Mr. Keetch: But can I take it from what you have said that the red lines that you and the Prime Minister have drawn will mean that, when you come back from this summit, nothing that you come back with will warrant, in your opinion, a referendum, and that therefore we can rule out once and for all the British people having a referendum on whatever you come back with from the summit? Margaret Beckett: I have not been prepared to say that, and I am not prepared to say it today. I simply say that we will come to a view on whether a treaty requires a referendum when we see what is in the treaty. That seems to me the only sane way to approach it. Q110 Ms Stuart: May I follow up on this? Back in 2004 the reason that the Prime Minister agreed to a referendum had nothing to do with constitutional arrangements or red lines. He said, "The treaty does not and will not alter the fundamental nature of the relationship between member states and the European Union...Parliament should debate it in detail and decide upon it. Then, let the people have the final say." His reason for a referendum then was neither constitutional nor linked with breaching any red lines or anything else. It was a fundamental principle that the people should decide. Why is that not the case also with an amending treaty? Margaret Beckett: First of all, a great many things have been said about what happened in 2004. The Prime Minister himself said, if I recall correctly, that it was because he accepted, perhaps a little reluctantly, that the constitutional treaty would substantially change the relationship between Britain and the European Union that he felt that it was right to have a referendum. If a treaty would not substantially change that basis, the argument would fall.
Chairman: Let me bring in Andrew Mackinlay and questions about process, involvement in debate in this country and about how we have approached the run-up to this weekend. Q111 Andrew Mackinlay: I understood that the Prime Minister appointed two-I think they were referred to as "focal points". Margaret Beckett: A bizarre term, I agree. Q112 Andrew Mackinlay: Yes, but I shall not argue with the Prime Minister about it. Margaret Beckett: It was not his term; it was a German description. Q113 Andrew Mackinlay: Yes. They were Shan Morgan and Kim Darroch and I understand that they have been talking to their opposite numbers. I do not say this critically, but the last time the Government formally reported to Parliament was back in January and I guess that your argument would be that there was nothing much to report. Is that right; it is only now that it has all come to a head? Yet those two officials have been talking all the time, have not they? Margaret Beckett: I should have said that the "focal points" are meeting as we speak, but slightly to my surprise-I shall not disguise that from the Committee-there has not been a sustained series of exchanges between the "focal points". There have been two actual meetings, but a couple or so conversations bilaterally between the German representatives and those of the United Kingdom-and others, but I meant on their own. There have been only two meetings. One was on 2 May, the second was on 15 May, and the third will take place today, at which we believe that a draft mandate may well be put before them to communicate to their Governments. Q114 Andrew Mackinlay: The fear of parliamentarians and members of the public is that, if that is so, and if so much is coming to a crescendo this weekend, it has all the elements of being bounced. It does not matter how skilful or resolute you or the Prime Minister are, there is a danger that, as of this moment in time, with discussions going on and nothing much having emerged, this weekend we could find that there is agreement on a treaty and/or constitution, and by Monday we could well be arguing about what it is and whether it meets your threshold. That is not a comfortable way in which to make decisions of such gravity, is it? Margaret Beckett: I did describe it as challenging. Q115 Andrew Mackinlay: May I ask you about these good folk-the entourage who will go with you and the Prime Minister this weekend? Do they include the two people I have referred to-Shan Morgan and Nicola Brewer? Margaret Beckett: Yes. Q116 Andrew Mackinlay: Why on earth is the Minister for Europe not going? I find that absolutely amazing. Margaret Beckett: I do not know whether he is going or not. Andrew Mackinlay: I asked him this morning, and he said no. It begs a question. He is elected and he is Minister for Europe, and I would have thought that this would be core business for him from January to now. It is breathtaking that he is not going, because presumably he knows all about this. Chairman: Foreign Secretary, before you answer, I think that Mr. Mackinlay's impression was that the Minister for Europe was not going, but I think what the Minister said was that he had not yet made up his mind whether he was going or not. Q117 Andrew Mackinlay: That was after he gulped after he had said that he was not going. He saw everyone's reaction and then he said that. Is he going or is he not? Margaret Beckett: I actually do not know as a matter of fact. He does not normally attend the European Council. Q118 Andrew Mackinlay: You see my point; I am not being sarcastic. Senior officials have been doing this work to the best of their ability-that much has emerged. Below Cabinet level, we have a Minister for Europe- Mr. Keetch: Who sits in on the Cabinet. Andrew Mackinlay: Apparently. We have a massive thing this weekend and no one knows whether the Minister for Europe is going. I find that breathtaking and amazing. Margaret Beckett: I think perhaps there is a bit of a misunderstanding here, and it goes back to the point that I made-at least, I think that I made it-about whether there has been what I would call negotiation. Yes, of course he is steeped in the detail in the sense that he has had extensive conversations with other Ministers for Europe in which he has set out the position of the United Kingdom, much as we have all set it out in any conversations that we have had or in any dialogue, as I would put it, with other colleagues. Q119 Andrew Mackinlay: But Foreign Secretary, that is rather my point. Your responsibilities are right across the waterfront, are they not? He exists but might not even be there to whisper in your or the Prime Minister's ear. Margaret Beckett: Well, that is exactly what happened when the constitutional treaty was negotiated. If I may remind you, it is the Foreign Secretary who negotiates. Can I also say that the Minister has had extensive conversations with other Ministers for Europe, but we all have a broad idea of where other member states stand and of their general approach. However, because there has not been a process that I would characterise as negotiation, there is no mass of hidden detail for Mr. Hoon to know that is not known to all the rest of us, including the "focal points". Q120 Andrew Mackinlay: Okay. You have indicated that nothing much has been going on. I have seen quotes from some stage in which you have said that nothing has been going on, but we have heard what you have said on that. Margaret Beckett: A bit more has gone on since then. Q121 Andrew Mackinlay: Sure, but the statement in the President's report to the European Council says that there have been "very extensive consultations" on the treaty reform process and possible ways forward. They are bragging that there have been "very extensive consultations". Margaret Beckett: They are free to call them consultations, and they are consultations in the sense that they have had people in and said, "What's your general approach?" I guess that most people have done what we have done, which is indicate our general approach and our concern that this should be an amending treaty. What the Prime Minister said to the Liaison Committee on whatever day it was is the closest that we have come to spelling out some of the detail on our red lines. We have been keeping our negotiating powder dry and so has everybody else. Q122 Chairman: Before I bring in Richard Younger-Ross, can you clarify the role in the preparation process of the Berlin declaration, on which there were negotiations in March? Has that played any role? Margaret Beckett: I do not think that the Berlin declaration was ever intended to play a role. By the way, the process of preparing the Berlin declaration was quite similar to the process we are having now in that, as Mr. Mackinlay called it, there was a process of consultation. Everybody was asked for their opinion and lots of people gave their opinions, but we did not see a draft until 23 March and it was published on 25 March. It was published, of course, as a three-presidency statement-the presidency of the European Parliament, the presidency of the Council, and the presidency of the Commission. It was published as a presidency statement, not as an agreed Council statement. Q123 Chairman: Was there a change? Was the original intention that it should be a Council statement? Margaret Beckett: I think that perhaps there was a hope that it might be a Council statement, but during the process of consultation there were quite differing views as to how the Berlin declaration should be approached. There were some who felt that there ought to be an intergovernmental conference and that a declaration on behalf of the whole of the European Union could not be produced through a relatively informal process. There were some people who would have liked it to have been a very extensive document, but the great majority of member states wanted something short, succinct and, hopefully, somewhat visionary. The only way that the declaration touched on this process is that there was a reference in it-I cannot remember the exact words, although no doubt somebody has got them-to a common desire to achieve reform in the European Union, which some people read as meaning that we will go ahead with the constitutional treaty unchanged. I do not think that that was what it was intended to say, but that is how some people read it, so there was a degree of sensitivity about that wording. That is the nearest it got to being related to this matter. Q124 Richard Younger-Ross: I wonder whether you could explain the logic behind your negotiating stance on this, Foreign Secretary. It strikes me that the Government have either been complacent or incompetent. Quite clearly there have been negotiations going on among other countries to prepare the ground for the summit and the IGC ahead of us. Why have the Government taken the stance that they will keep their powder dry? Why have they not engaged in the process, so that we would have some influence over what the German's will tell us tomorrow, rather than having to stamp our feet like a petulant child and say, "No, we're not going to do that."? Margaret Beckett: I am afraid that the description that you give, Mr. Younger-Ross, is not an accurate description of what has happened. First of all, in so far as the opportunity has been offered, we have engaged with the German Government. We have set out very plainly our approach and that we believe the treaty that is required is one that has a different approach from the constitutional treaty. Whenever the opportunity has been offered, we have engaged in dialogue. You say that there have been negotiations among other countries, but I do not believe that that is so. I think that what has happened is a version of what I described to Mr. Mackinlay as a dialogue. We have had discussions with other member states in which we have said, "Broadly speaking, we are here. This is our approach; we need an amending treaty. There are areas where we have concerns." We have all had those discussions, but they are not negotiations. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explain what I mean. To my mind the process of actual negotiation begins when you are invited to set out your core demands to a partner with whom you are negotiating, who also has a set of core demands. The exchange perhaps then begins by them saying, "You cannot possibly have that, but perhaps we could give ground on this or help you with that bit there." You may then say, "This is completely unsatisfactory and, what is more, we cannot accept that under any circumstances." That is a process that then goes on. It is a detailed process of assessment and, if you like, trading. To the best of my knowledge and understanding-and I have talked and, more to the point, listened to all my Foreign Minister colleagues over the months-no such process has taken place. Let me give you an example involving a statement that was made the other day. President Sarkozy is clearly anxious to build good relationships with his new partners and with as many member states as he can. He has undertaken a process of discussion with our Prime Minister and has said that we have reached common ground on the fact that we both think, from our different points of view, that there should be an amending treaty. He has had other discussions with the Spanish Government, whereby they have clearly identified areas of common ground. Part of the reason why I say this process is challenging is that, as far as I can see, probably no one member state is in exactly the same position as, and has a negotiated agreement with, any other member state. Q125 Richard Younger-Ross: Really? Margaret Beckett: I may be exaggerating, but only very slightly. Q126 Richard Younger-Ross: You have used the word "discussion", and I fear that you might have misled the European Scrutiny Committee in your evidence on 7 June. Margaret Beckett: Very unlikely, if I may say so. Q127 Richard Younger-Ross: I asked you specifically then, "Can you confirm whether there have been discussions about these matters, although they might not be negotiations?" You did not expand at that time to say that there had been meetings with the Germans or that there had been discussions and dialogue with our Prime Minister. Margaret Beckett: Again, I think that we are at cross-purposes. I am trying to remember what you asked me. If I recall it correctly, you asked whether there had been specific discussions about treaty content. There had not been in the way that I consider to form part of a negotiating preparation and a discussion leading up to that. As I said to you in the European Scrutiny Committee, it was very much the case that that was so. By the way, I was also talking about collective discussion round the Council table. Q128 Richard Younger-Ross: That was not the question that I put to you. I shall again put to you the full question: "The Foreign Secretary very carefully used the words 'meaningful negotiations'. I am wondering if you used the words twice whether negotiations preclude discussions"-that is, did you mean negotiate and not discussions? I continued: "Can you confirm whether there have been discussions about these matters, although they might not be negotiations?" You did not answer that there had been any discussions or dialogue. Margaret Beckett: Perhaps we were at cross-purposes then, because I meant that there had not been-indeed, you could probably say that there still have not been-discussions in Council, around the Council table, about the approach on the treaty or its content. No such discussions have taken place. Q129 Chairman: May I ask you about the process that we are engaged in within our own role here? This negotiation comes at an interesting time, because there is to be a change of Prime Minister. How closely has the Prime Minister-elect been involved in this discussion? We know that he will not be there at the weekend either, but if this process leads to an IGC under the Portuguese presidency, clearly it will be for the new Prime Minister to take that forward. Margaret Beckett: Indeed. Q130 Chairman: If it does not lead to that, he will have to deal with the mess that comes out of the weekend. Could you give us an insight into how this has been co-ordinated? Margaret Beckett: I would simply say that, as I think the Committee would expect, once it became clear that the Chancellor would become the Prime Minister-if there had been a contest, that would have been at least nominally in question and a slightly different constitutional situation would have been created-a greater exchange of dialogue and discussion took place, which has been an ongoing process. Q131 Andrew Mackinlay: Can you tell us more? We are entitled to know about the machinery of government. Margaret Beckett: There is nothing exciting about this in terms of the machinery of government. This is just not an area that he has been engaged in, and he has now received the kind of briefings that we have had. Q132 Ms Stuart: I know how painful the negotiations are and I still occasionally break out in a cold sweat when I think back to the days when I was involved, but the problem with negotiations as you describe them is that the typical scenario, in my experience, is that the others have a list of things they want and we have a list of things we do not want. So far as all these negotiations are concerned, the only time we ever really wanted something was when we wanted the European President-the creation of that post. Can I have just one nugget of concrete information? As that was at one stage our key priority, do we still think that it is something that we should be fighting for and still want? Margaret Beckett: We certainly think that that is a rule change that would substantially improve the efficiency of the way the European Union works, but I would say that our main negotiating goal in this particular process, which is of course quite different-I genuinely sympathise with the ordeal that those of you who were involved in the treaty negotiations went through-has been to get acceptance that the treaty that is put forward should be an amending treaty and should have the characteristics and the likely content of an amending treaty. It remains to be seen, but I would anticipate it may well be that the position of President will be there. Q133 Ms Stuart: With the indulgence of the Chair, may I ask another question? If it is an amending treaty, would an amending treaty, according to your definition, be the appropriate vehicle for something such as giving the European Union a single legal personality, and are we for or against that? Margaret Beckett: If I recall correctly-Patrick will kick me or correct me if I am wrong-there was an extension of the use of single legal personality in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Patrick Reilly: Not exactly, Foreign Secretary. Margaret Beckett: No, partly. Remind me. Patrick Reilly: We have had legal personality in the European Community since 1957. Margaret Beckett: I am well aware of that, but there was some extension to the European Union at some point-in an amending treaty anyway if it is not Amsterdam. As Patrick points out to the Committee, the European Community had a single legal personality from 1957, and there has been some sort of functional exercise of that kind of personality in the European Union, exercised normally, I think I am right in saying, by the Presidents of the Council of the day, so it may sound a big deal, but as this kind of thing has been dealt with in the past in an amending treaty, it no doubt could be dealt with in an amending treaty on this occasion. Q134 Ms Stuart: It is a big deal. The fully fledged single personality is one of the main things most European integrationists seek, and by that I mean the full single legal personality that will allow the EU to enter into treaty negotiations across the whole range, not just where it has sole competence. That is what was in the original document. Is that something that we think is acceptable, and is acceptable for an amending treaty? Margaret Beckett: I can only repeat that we will have to see what is put forward, but the fact that the European Community has had a single legal personality from the beginning and had it before there was a European Union puts it in a somewhat different context. I accept your point entirely that there are people with particular ambitions for the development of the European Union who would choose to construe such a step in a particular way. That is quite another matter from saying that it is an inevitable consequence. Q135 Sir John Stanley: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he will be for another week or so, said this morning that he would hold a referendum if it was necessary. You, in answer to an earlier question from the Committee this afternoon, very carefully did not rule out the possibility of a referendum. The question, therefore, that I put to you is this: what are the circumstances in which the Government would judge it right and appropriate to hold a referendum? Margaret Beckett: First of all, I am afraid I did not hear what the Chancellor said this morning, but I accept what you say, Sir John, and as you say, not only today but at all times I have been careful not to say-in fact, I do not think that any of us have said-there will not be a referendum. What we have always said is it would depend on the content of any treaty that was agreed whether or not the Government judged that that was something that required a referendum. Of course, other people will have their views, and I shall be astonished if there are not large numbers of people who demand a referendum no matter what is in the treaty. Q136 Sir John Stanley: Are you saying that there will be a considerable period before the Government are able to tell the Committee and the House whether they accept that there should be a referendum, or not, or are you saying that by the end of the summit process this weekend, you will be in a position to tell the House next week whether you believe there should be a referendum or not? Margaret Beckett: One must not prejudge the matter, but if there is agreement on a mandate this weekend, I would have thought that it would be possible to say then whether or not, in the Government's judgment, it was sufficient to require a referendum. That is my expectation, Sir John. I cannot, of course, give an assurance that that will be so, but that is my expectation. Q137 Sir John Stanley: So we can expect that by next Monday the Government will have been able to form a judgment on whether the mandate is such that they believe that there should be a referendum or not. Margaret Beckett: Yes. I certainly hope so. Q138 Mr. Horam: May we return to a statement you made a few moments ago? You said that your main aim in the discussions was to achieve something that had the characteristics of an amending treaty. Is that a fair summary of your objective? Margaret Beckett: Yes-one that lacks the characteristics of a constitution. Q139 Mr. Horam: May we drill down on that a little? When you refer to the characteristics of an amending treaty, what would be the content of that? As I understand it-I am focusing on what has been said in the past few weeks-we would be prepared to accept as characteristics of an amending treaty, first, a single Foreign Secretary for the European Union, secondly, a presidency that lasted three years rather than six months, and, thirdly, changes to the voting weights in the Council to reflect greater power for the major countries. Would that be a reasonable discussion? Margaret Beckett: No, I am not saying that, and I shall explain why. I have never said that this and this would be characteristics of an amending treaty. We approach the issue from the opposite direction. There are things that would give a treaty the characteristics of a constitution, and we have set our face against having a treaty with the characteristics of a constitution. If it is not a constitution, to my mind it is an amending treaty, which is what we are seeking, and there will then be discussion about the content of that. If the content of a proposed treaty included something that we believed gave it the characteristics of a constitution, that would make it something of a constitutional treaty rather than an amending treaty. Q140 Mr. Horam: Therefore, may I ask you to define what you mean by the constitutional aspects of a treaty? For example, are you saying that a significant transfer of power from a nation state, such as the UK, to the European Union would constitute a constitutional change, as opposed to changes that might increase the efficiency of the working of the European Union? Margaret Beckett: Those are terms that one would have to define. I simply say that- Q141 Mr. Horam: I am trying to define them. Margaret Beckett: A treaty that substituted or replaced existing treaties, was explicitly defined as a constitution, and contained symbolic things such as the flag, the anthem and so on, would clearly be and would have been intended to be a constitution to replace existing treaties and roll them into one document. That is not something that we envisage. Q142 Mr. Horam: But we must get away from general statements to content at some stage and, as I understand it, the sort of things that the UK would be prepared to accept would be measures that improved the efficiency of the working of the European Union-for example, not having two Foreign Secretaries, which is what it has at the moment in practice. Do you agree? Margaret Beckett: I certainly understand the criticism of having that duplication of roles-an External Affairs Commissioner and a high representative. Q143 Mr. Horam: Right, and returning to the point that Gisela Stuart made, can you separate things that are concerned with the efficiency of working of the European Union, such as having one Foreign Secretary rather than two, from, for example, having a single legal personality and the ability to make treaties? Are they separable? Margaret Beckett: Yes, I would have thought they probably are, but we shall see what set of proposals the German Government put forward. Q144 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Prime Minister yesterday set out four red lines-that is, issues that he will not accept under any circumstances. But the total European constitution-I have a copy here-runs to 511 pages. If we generously suppose that the red lines take up about 11 pages, that still leaves 500 pages of the constitution. Are you willing to accept those remaining 500 pages? Margaret Beckett: I should be astonished, Mr. Heathcoat-Amory, if any treaty proposal that emerges from this weekend's discussion runs to anywhere near 500 pages. We have made it very clear that we do not accept that the constitutional treaty should be placed before the British people any more than the French and the Dutch Governments accept that it should be placed afresh before their peoples. Q145 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Can you then tell us what in the 500 pages, apart from the four red lines, you wish to see come out or think will come out? There are some very controversial measures in there that the British Government did not want in the constitution-I know that, because I was on the Convention at the time. They include, for instance, the collapse of the intergovernmental pillars, the creation of a single legal personality that can operate as a state on the world stage, the energy chapter, which would give the EU new powers over the energy market and the supply of energy, and the co-ordination of economic and employment policies by the Union. The Prime Minister is, by implication, accepting all that, and is saying that he simply wants to set out his four red lines. Is that your position? Margaret Beckett: I do not think that the Prime Minister would accept that by setting out the red lines he is accepting all the other 400 and however many pages there are of the constitutional treaty. Q146 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Well, tell us what you are seeking to take out. Margaret Beckett: I am not conducting the negotiations here, I am afraid, Mr. Heathcoat-Amory. Q147 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: You are not negotiating with me, but you might share with us your other concerns about the constitutional treaty. Margaret Beckett: I simply say that what we are looking for is an amending treaty, which we believe could usefully clarify and tighten up the rule book of the European Union, to help it work more effectively in a community of 27. Q148 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Can I press you on something else specific? One of the red lines is about the move to qualified majority voting. The Prime Minister said that he would not accept it for tax and the benefits system, but there are at least 42 areas where we have a veto that are switched to majority voting in the European constitution. Again, are you accepting that in those 38 areas you will accept that switch to majority voting? That would of course be a very big extension of the powers of European Union and would restrict the ability of a British Government or Parliament to object to future legal measures from the EU. Margaret Beckett: I would say two things about that, Mr. Heathcoat-Amory. No, I am not putting forward a position that says that we accept everything else. What I would simply say is that qualified majority voting was, of course, accepted in the Single European Act, which I think was- Patrick Reilly: 1986. Margaret Beckett: 1986. It was then, under Lady Thatcher, that the United Kingdom gave up its veto. It did so because it was believed by the Government of the day-in my view very sensibly-that there were occasions on which it would be to the British people's national advantage to be able to achieve a decision without one member state being able to veto it. That is when the decision was made, in an amending treaty on which we did not have a referendum. Similarly, in the Maastricht treaty qualified majority voting was either extended or instigated in something of the order of 30 areas. Again, for the avoidance of doubt, that was done without it being conceded that that required a referendum. So without in any way suggesting that we are happy with everything that has been proposed outside the areas of social security and so on, we should look at what, in the package that is proposed, we judge to be in the national interest of the United Kingdom. But since I do not know what is going to be in the package that is proposed, there is not much more that I can say about that. Q149 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: But there has been a massive retreat in your position. I have with me a copy of the White Paper that the Government published in September 2003, before the last intergovernmental conference. In it, there were seven areas on which the Government would "insist"-the paper uses that term-that unanimity should remain. Only two of them are tax and social security, so you are now saying that you will accept a switch to qualified majority voting in the other areas where you previously insisted that there was no question of doing so, so there has been, as usual, an enormous- Margaret Beckett: I am not saying- Q150 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: May I finish the question? As usual, there has been an enormous change. I specifically want to ask you about criminal justice matters. Margaret Beckett: I would call your comments an assertion, not a question. Q151 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Excuse me, but I want to ask you a question, if I may, Foreign Secretary. Margaret Beckett: Please do. Q152 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Why are you now accepting majority voting on criminal justice matters which, up until now, had been the preserve of national Parliaments answerable to national electorates? The coercive power of the state is now apparently to be transferred from domestic Parliaments to the European Union, where it is to be decided by majority voting. Are you accepting that? Margaret Beckett: If I may say so, Mr. Heathcoat-Amory, what you put to me, until the very end, was not a question but a series of assertions that I do not accept. I point out to you that the Prime Minister also said that we will not allow ourselves to be overruled on our common law system or on our police and judicial process. I accept that there is a legitimate intellectual argument, if you like-we have had this exchange across the Floor of the House with the shadow Foreign Secretary on occasion-that there are some areas where cross-border co-operation can be beneficial. Terrorism and organised crime are areas where greater co-operation across international borders may well have benefits. We certainly benefited in July 2005 or thereabouts from the creation of a European arrest warrant. I would not automatically set my face against any single thing that looked as if it would be helpful in securing the goals that the British people would set for effective security and effective tackling of criminal activity. Having said that, that is quite a different matter from saying, as you did, that we are prepared to resile from our position. Q153 Richard Younger-Ross: Foreign Secretary, you seem to be unable to tell us what it is that would mean that we would go to a referendum this time. You have gone all the way around the garden on the issue. What in the original treaty made you decide that you wanted a referendum, and what changed? Margaret Beckett: I think that we have explained that many times. It was the fact that the document was a constitution, that it was a replacement for all the treaties of the European Union, and that it contained some symbolic gestures that were very important to several member states-the flag and anthem, all that kind of thing-and the belief that the package as a whole perhaps represented quite a transfer of responsibilities. But that package is no longer before us. This is not in any way a criticism of anybody in the Committee but, in my judgment, one of the things that has been bedevilling the process of discussion, exchange and potential dialogue-but not negotiation-is that there are too many people who are still totally focussed on what was in the constitutional treaty and, in some cases, on their desire to preserve it in essence. They are reluctant to accept that the French and Dutch referendums meant that that constitutional treaty will not return. Q154 Ms Stuart: Foreign Secretary, I am slightly puzzled, because when I attended the negotiations in Germany a few weeks ago, it was quite clear that, for most of the mainland Europeans, the question was how to protect as much as possible of the constitutional treaty, and what they needed to slice off to make it acceptable-in essence, slice off the wallpaper. I think that we both know that whether Europe has a flag and an anthem legally makes not the blindest bit of difference. We seem to be saying, "It's not the same beast," whereas the rest of them are quite clear and open that it is a question of, "How much do we need to take off to make it acceptable to the Brits?" They are looking at it so differently, and there are 26 of them and only one of us. Margaret Beckett: I am sorry; broadly speaking there is something in what you say but the notion that there are 26 of them and that is what they all want, and we are the only people who do not, is, I fear, not correct. There is indeed a large core group of member states, particularly those that have ratified the treaty, that perfectly understandably and sensibly do not really want to have to go back to their Parliaments, or in the case of the Spanish and Luxembourg Governments to their electorates, and say, "Actually, maybe we're not going to do this any more in quite this way." It is perfectly understandable that that is their view and that their approach has been, "This is really what we wanted to do, so can we save as much of it as possible?" It is perfectly sensible that that is their approach. Equally the French, the Dutch, we and other member states have been saying that the constitutional treaty is not going to return. We are not starting from the same place. We are starting by suggesting that, given that we are no longer going to have a constitutional treaty, we should consider an amending treaty. We start from a different place. You are absolutely right that there has been a reluctance to start from that place, which is why, as the German presidency report said at the end last week, the case remains that a lot of member states would like to carry on as much of the treaty as possible whereas other member states do not share that view. That remains exactly where we are. Q155 Mr. Illsley: On the document to which my colleague just alluded, the completed constitution, is the case not that had the UK envisaged that it would be given so much more importance by other countries, we would have opposed it much more strenuously during its formative period? Is it not a fact that a lot of countries have given far more weight to the document as a constitution than we ever did? I seem to recall some of us using the phrase "a tidying-up exercise" to describe the document's bringing together all the separate treaties. Is not part of the problem the idea that has been given that it was an over-arching constitution that we never wanted? Margaret Beckett: That is a very strong and valid point. UK negotiators had not envisaged, when the negotiations and then the discussions commenced, such iconic status being placed on the document as has been placed on it by a number of member state colleagues. But hindsight is a wonderful thing. Q156 Mr. Keetch: The problem with Mr. Illsley's suggestion is that the actual command document placed before Parliament describes it as a "treaty establishing a constitution for Europe". It might have started out as a tidying-up exercise, but it ended up as a constitution. It is a bit like a duck, isn't it? If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and has feathers, it is probably a duck. We are trying to understand whether you are going to come back with a constitution or an amending treaty. You are saying that you will not cross the Prime Minister's four red lines, and we will therefore not have a referendum. In answer to Sir John, you said that you do not envisage there being a circumstance in which you would come back with something that required a referendum, but you are not ruling a referendum out. I will ask you a very simple question: if one other nation state comes back from Brussels at the weekend and feels that what it has, whether it is called an amending treaty, a constitution or a duck, should be put to its people in a referendum, will you allow the British people to have that same say? Margaret Beckett: I can answer that question readily, Mr. Keetch. One member state is bound to come back and say that it will have a referendum, because the Irish have a constitutional requirement. Q157 Mr. Keetch: And the Portuguese? Margaret Beckett: So no matter what happens, the Irish will have a referendum. The Portuguese have not given an indication. They believe that they may- Richard Younger-Ross: They have, Foreign Secretary. Q158 Chairman: May I ask you to clarify something? You have talked about the four red lines, but other areas that do not appear on the lists of red lines are reported to have caused a tough exchange at your meeting on Sunday. Are there other areas, such as external affairs work and the so-called ambassadors of the European Union-our Committee was critical of that concept, last year-that are red lines, but are not listed as such? Margaret Beckett: With the red lines, we have the phraseology and we will insist on maintaining our ability to conduct our own independent foreign and defence policy. Obviously, foreign and defence policy is an area for discussion. May I say, do not believe everything that you read in the papers about a frosty atmosphere. Q159 Chairman: I never do, but some things are interesting. Margaret Beckett: Certainly, that area-what is now in the proposals for the common foreign and security policy-is something that we want to look at. Q160 Chairman: In other words, you have a real problem with what the majority-the 18 countries who have endorsed the treaty, plus three or four others who might do so- Margaret Beckett: Let us be quite clear about this. The 18 countries who have endorsed the treaty have accepted all the constitutional treaty, and they now have to consider where they stand. I think that some of them have held the view that all they have to do is not look and it will not go away. Q161 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We know that what comes out of the negotiations will not be called a constitution. That is about the only thing that can be agreed. In deference to our sensitivities, it will be called a treaty, but that is why we have to look at the substance. We are having difficulty with the EU trying to assess the substance and what new powers will be in the final document. You mentioned that the reason why a referendum was granted before was because it would have altered the relationship between the UK and the EU, but we have discussed many examples, in this brief sitting, of areas where there clearly will be a change, even if the Prime Minister gets all his red lines taken out, as all the other qualified majority voting advances. You mentioned the Single European Act, but there were only 12 in that; there are 42 in the constitution, and we now know that the Prime Minister objects to only two of them. We have discussed having a single legal personality for the European Union and collapsing the intergovernmental pillars, as well as a permanent, full-time President in Brussels, who clearly would have more powers, and a European Foreign Minister. He would not be called a Minister, again out of deference to our concerns about presentation, but he would have many powers to conduct foreign policy on behalf of all the member states. Does not all that add up to a change in the relationship between the existing Union and the member states that justifies a referendum on exactly the same grounds as those on which the Prime Minister gave way last time, in 2005, when he suddenly announced one? Margaret Beckett: Mr. Heathcoat-Amory, you keep asserting what will be in the treaty, but there are not yet even any proposals from the German Government as to what they envisage being in the mandate of the treaty, let alone any reaction from the British Government to those proposals, or any negotiated agreement. So, I am afraid that all of that is theoretical. Q162 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: So, you can tell us nothing? You are sitting here, two days before the negotiations start, and you do not know whether the Minister for Europe is going. Presumably, you are going; can you not tell us something about it? There have been feverish negotiations in Europe about this. Mr. Keetch: Discussions, not negotiations. Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Discussions, as you delicately put it. Margaret Beckett: I am sorry, but this is a total misunderstanding. There have not been feverish negotiations and discussions in Europe; I wish that there had, but there have not. To put it bluntly, most of our colleagues have been in denial and have been saying things like, "Oh, well, people signed up to this in 2004, so therefore you must all agree with it now." That is not a basis for negotiation or discussion if we are not going to have a constitutional treaty. So it is no good to keep going on about how there have been all these negotiations. There have not. It might be a great pity, but there have not. I understand completely; I am sure that the Committee imagined, as did we probably, that we would have had a draft document weeks ago, and that there would have been a lot of discussion and argy-bargy and all those kinds of things. You as a Committee did not want to be left out of it. I understand and sympathise. I have not seen the draft document either-nobody has. It has not been produced-well, until five minutes ago perhaps. Q163 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Well, Foreign Secretary, what have the sherpas been doing? Margaret Beckett: There are no sherpas. Q164 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: May I ask you the question, please? In January, in a parliamentary answer to the House, the Prime Minister said that he had appointed Kim Darroch and Nicola Brewer to prepare the ground for these very important negotiations, which I remind you are about not just a constitution for Europe, but for this country. We do not have a written constitution, so it would affect the powers of this House, which is why we are all so interested. Do you mean to say that those two very senior officials have been doing nothing since January and have not been reporting back? Are you saying that the letter that was sent around-that questionnaire-from Mrs. Merkel, suggesting that it all go through except for changing a few of the presentational titles, is now mouldering away in the bottom drawer in the Foreign Office? We are not all innocent here. We have all been engaged in some way in foreign affairs in the past and know perfectly well that much discussion has been taking place. We want you to tell us what the British position might be because it is all going to happen this week. Margaret Beckett: I am sure that this is all particularly familiar to Mr. Younger-Ross, because it is very much what the European Scrutiny Committee said. I was nit-picking perhaps when I said that there are no sherpas. There are no people called sherpas-the people whom normally you would call sherpas are called focal points. Don't ask me why. As I explained, the focal points have met twice only-in May. So yes, you are absolutely right Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: when we were asked to identify two people, we assumed that there would be a sustained process of dialogue and exchange together with potential draft documents and so on, but that has not happened. It is not that something is being withheld from you; in fact we are being completely frank. The process has not evolved in the way in which I think that most people imagined that it would when we were asked to appoint the two people. Incidentally, Nicola Brewer has left and it is now Kim Darroch and Shan Morgan. So it is the same people. Q165 Chairman: We had better move on to some other areas in a moment, but before we move away from the constitutional treaty, I would like to ask one more question. Would an agreement on Sunday involve a formal statement that the constitutional treaty is withdrawn, is dead, and is no more-to coin a phrase? Otherwise we will be in a situation in which 18 countries have ratified, but in which also we will be about to have an IGC under the Portuguese presidency with some ambiguity about the basis of that conference. Margaret Beckett: No discussion of that has taken place. I do not know. No one knows the answer to your question. If you are asking me for my political judgment, I think that it would be very reluctant to make such a statement, because there are a number of member states that have ratified and remain very attached to the content of the treaty because it is a matter of some sensitivity in their countries and with their electorate. However, given that the constitutional treaty has been rejected by the electorates of two member states, it cannot come back in its current form unless those member states, along with others, are prepared to bring it back in its previous form. But I see no prospect of that happening. Q166 Andrew Mackinlay: The Chairman's view, and ours, is that, on Monday, states that are enthusiasts for the constitution-we have them in mind-will deem that they have ratified what emerges on Monday. In other words, it will fit in with their concept of the constitution. That would be abhorrent-not to me-but it would be inconsistent with the Prime Minister's view. If Ireland, for instance, said, "Well, what has emerged from Monday are points 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the constitution, so we have already had them endorsed by our electorate, and so we do not need to go to them again." In other words, by stealth you have the constitution. Margaret Beckett: The Irish Government made it very plain that they have to have a referendum. Q167 Andrew Mackinlay: I used the term earlier about being bounced, but the Prime Minister and you can go along this weekend and say, "We have heard this, but we are simply not prepared to sign up to it." The view is that everything has to be done. The record of the EEC is that there has hardly ever been a breakdown-there have been one or two. However, if you give evidence to the Committee saying, "As Foreign Secretary, I am so frustrated that there have been no discussions," and something is published as you are speaking, surely in any organisation, whether the Scouts or the European Union, you have to say, "I am not prepared to put up with this; you will have to come back another day." Why do we have to agree all this over this weekend? There is no logical reason. The world will not collapse if it is deferred and kicked into touch. It would discipline the European Union if the United Kingdom takes that stance this weekend and on Monday. Margaret Beckett: It remains to be seen what will happen this weekend. The one thing on which we have not touched that it would be worth bearing in mind goes back, in a sense, to the Hampton Court summit. There is a recognition, which is perhaps slightly grudging on the part of some, that the citizens of the European Union are not as excited as some people think that they should be about such technical discussions and concentration on legislative documents and things of that kind. A lot of people-maybe everybody-will feel that if the matter can be dealt with this weekend, and followed by a short and effective IGC to develop the treaty, and if we can put it behind us so that the European Union can continue to concentrate on the matters that are of much more day-to-day relevance to the citizens of the European Union, everybody would think that that was a good thing. Whether it can be done is another matter. Q168 Sandra Osborne: One of the main aims of the constitution was to bring the EU closer to the people. Do you agree that if a referendum had been held in the UK, it is highly unlikely that the British people would have said yes? I would go further than what you have just said and say that many of the public are not only not enamoured with the process, but they are not particularly enamoured with the European Union-they are certainly no closer to it than they were before. How are they to be brought closer to the EU, and do you not think, given that there might be a lack of trust in any amended treaty that comes forward, that the Government will have to have a referendum to bring people along with the idea rather than thinking that you can just put it behind you and move on to the day-to-day issues, as you say? Is there not a public credibility issue? Margaret Beckett: There are two or three things wrapped up in that. First, I utterly reject the notion that because we now have a Labour Government we should be required to have referendums in circumstances where previous Conservative Governments had no intention of holding them and never did hold them. The only national referendum we have ever had was in 1972, when we joined the European Union. I refuse to accept that-[Interruption.] It was 1975, not 1972. You are quite right. We joined without either a referendum or a general election, which had been the undertaking of the then Conservative Government. We had the only national referendum we have ever had in 1975. I reject the notion that somehow we have to be judged by a different standard. My Italian colleague assures me that the constitution is extremely popular with the people of Italy and that it is one of the things that makes them feel closer to the European Union. But I accept your judgment, Ms Osborne, that that might not be the case in the United Kingdom. You say that people will think that there is more in this than the Government accept or admit, but that is because they have been assiduously told that for months and they will continue to be told that. We all know that, but I remain of the view that it is wiser to make the judgment when we see the proposed content of the treaty. Then we can come to a judgment. Chairman: Let us move on to some other areas, please. [Interruption.] One final question on this area, and then we are going to move on. Q169 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Foreign Secretary, you said that no meaningful discussions have been taking place at Foreign Office level. But they have clearly been taking place at prime ministerial level, because we have the report of a meeting that took place between the Prime Minister and the Dutch Prime Minister on 16 April. Clearly, negotiations have been taking place somewhere else. Both of them make the point that a Europe of 27 needs different rules from a Europe of 15, but do you agree that there has been no slowdown in the volume of legislation coming out of Brussels in recent years after the successive enlargements? Do you see a case for majority voting to speed up the decision-making process, when it is not clear-to me anyway-that what Europe really lacks is legislation and regulation? Margaret Beckett: Well, it depends on the circumstances. One area in which the European Union is popular, even with the people of the United Kingdom, is environmental policy. There are many people who feel that moving forward on standards is not only always desirable in itself, but that-this was certainly the basis of the decision made at the March Council-if we do so, there could be a real competitive advantage to the European Union as a whole if we make ourselves the first low carbon economy. I do not accept that there are no areas where there might not be benefit in moving forward, or that there might not be benefit in moving forward on the issue of qualified majority voting. You have to forgive me, I have completely forgotten the beginning of your question. Q170 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I just made the point that negotiations have been taking place, but clearly not with you. Margaret Beckett: I am sorry, but I do not accept the characterisation that they are negotiations. The Dutch Prime Minister is not in a position to deliver agreement to our Prime Minister on what should be in the treaty. All they can do is exchange ideas about his main concerns, our main concerns, and whether we might be in the same place. As I said to the Committee before, however, as far as I can make out, no one member state is in the identical place to any other member state at this moment in time. Chairman: We must move on. Paul Keetch, on enlargement. Q171 Mr. Keetch: The chairman is encouraging us to move on, so I will accept his encouragement. May I talk about enlargement, Foreign Secretary? I appreciate that it is not a huge issue of the German presidency, but it is important that we look at a number of areas. I shall start with Serbia. Are there any indications that the EU process might be so sufficient as to persuade Belgrade to support the Ahtisaari plan for Kosovo? Are we moving down that line? Has it been successful, and is Belgrade now delivering on some of the issues that we would like it to deliver on, so that we can move forward on enlargement towards that country? Margaret Beckett: The test that you have set is not a test that can be met. It is common ground among colleagues that probably no Serbian politician could say, "Yes, I accept the Ahtisaari plan." However, what did and does concern the European Union is whether there are things that Serbia can do to show that they are moving forward and, for example, arresting some of the prisoners. There has been, as you probably know, strong resistance in the General Affairs Council to opening negotiations with Serbia about the stabilisation and association agreement lacking such movement. However, Serbia has now moved. We welcome that very much, which is why Commissioner Rehn announced a few days ago that the negotiations can recommence. He has also made it plain-he said this explicitly at the Council yesterday-that such negotiations cannot be concluded until Serbia has fully complied with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. We all welcome the moves that Serbia has made. We are all deeply relieved that they have meant that we can begin to open the negotiations, because there is common ground on the fact that everybody wants to hold open to Serbia the prospect of membership of the European Union. We want to hold open that door. It was difficult to do so without any moves on the side of the European Union, yet there was strong resistance in the Council, of which we were part, to moving towards those negotiations if Serbia was not prepared to make any moves to co-operate with the international court. We have seen some encouraging steps in the right direction, so those negotiations will commence. I welcome that, as I think everybody does. Q172 Mr. Illsley: As you are aware, there have recently been significant political conflicts in Turkey, which have shown the fragility of the Turkish democracy of the moment. Do you consider that the problems in Turkey are a reason for the UK to step up its commitment towards Turkey's EU membership or to take a step backwards from that commitment and proceed with a certain amount of caution? Margaret Beckett: I certainly do not take the view that we should now take a step backwards, because although I accept that Turkey has not made as much progress as people would like and that recent events have caused some anxiety, it is our judgment and understanding that it is primarily the prospect-in the longer term, of course-of membership of the European Union that has stimulated the reforms that have taken place in Turkey. If we were now to step back, we would put a dampener on the process of reform. Part of what lies behind your question is the wish to see a greater process of reform, and we would not be likely to get that by stepping back. As to whether we can step up our engagement, we are already pretty heavily engaged, to be honest. Q173 Mr. Illsley: How do you see the election of President Sarkozy playing on this issue? I know that he has said that he will leave the issue of Turkey aside for the moment, but he has obviously stated his opposition to its membership. Do you see that bringing him into conflict with ourselves? Do you see his election again putting a brake on Turkey's accession? Margaret Beckett: He has indicated that he does not intend to obstruct the continuing process of negotiation and discussion, which, as we all know, is likely to go on for a substantial period of years-that is what happens with accession negotiations. Obviously, he has concerns, which he has expressed strongly in the past, but I hope that, over time, in discussion with other European Union colleagues, he will appreciate the exact point that I put to you about the potential advantages for Turkey. I cannot recall whether I have said this to this Committee before, and if I have done so, I apologise for repeating myself. We take the view that right across the Muslim world people are looking to see whether we treat Turkey as fairly as we treat any other applicant to the European Union. In addition, a large number of people in the Muslim world are potential reformers, or they would like to be reformers in their own country. Such people are looking to see whether there is anything that they can learn from the way in which Turkey is reforming, from the difficulties that it is experiencing and from the benefits, advantages and so on. This could be really important in bringing about the kind of change that we would like to see happening a lot more widely than merely in Turkey. I suspect that that is an argument with which President Sarkozy has not been engaged. Q174 Mr. Illsley: Finally, has the UK given any thought to his proposal for a Mediterranean union? Margaret Beckett: We are giving thought to it. Chairman: We will come back to that at some point. Q175 Mr. Hamilton: May I just pick up on something that Mr. Illsley said? I agree with everything that you have just said, Foreign Secretary, about the need for Turkey to be part of the European Union. Many of us strongly support the Government's policy on this. However, we have a problem, do we not, because, essential as I and many of us believe it is that Turkey should join the European Union and make the progress towards accession, we have a block. That block is the promise that former President Chirac made on a referendum in France and the fact that the Austrians-we have just returned from Vienna-are implacably opposed to Turkey becoming part of Europe, as we know they have been for 100s of years, and are going to hold a referendum. We cannot tell what is going to happen in five or 10 years, but the likely outcome now is that both those countries will oppose Turkey's accession to the European Union. How are we going to get round that one and tell the Turks that it is worth carrying on with the negotiations? Margaret Beckett: I am well aware that the Government of Austria have strong reservations about this, but they had strong reservations about continuing the negotiations with Turkey. They had anxieties and concerns, but in the end they were swayed by the kind of views that I have just expressed to Mr. Illsley and by the view of the Council as a whole. Of course I accept that there are concerns, but as I said a moment ago, we are really quite a long way from the point of decision on this, and a lot of things can happen. Q176 Mr. Hamilton: May I move us on to the policies of the European Union outside the Union? I want to draw attention to an area that is causing a great deal of anxiety, not just for us, but for the European Union and its critical role, namely the Middle East. We now have effectively two Palestinian Governments. Hamas always said, "Well, we were democratically elected", yet by force, and with the most dreadful brutality, it has taken the whole of Gaza. We now have a temporary Government under the leadership of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who is someone whom the west trusts a great deal, whom President Abbas has just appointed. Yet in spite of what has happened in Gaza and the dreadful split, there are two points that I want to make. First, there are many ordinary people crammed into the Gaza strip who are starving, and have no energy and no water supply. What are we going to do to ensure that there is not a humanitarian crisis? The EU has to do something about that. I know that we have the temporary international mechanism and that we are trying to support the democratic side of the Palestinian Authority, but there is a dreadful crisis looming. I hope that we are going to do something. Can you reassure us that the European Union has an emergency plan? Margaret Beckett: Obviously we discussed this yesterday, and I am sure that the Committee will be interested to see the conclusions that the Council reached, among which is a very clear statement that the EU will do its utmost to ensure the provision of emergency and humanitarian assistance to the population of Gaza, whom it will not abandon. Unimpeded access to humanitarian aid deliveries must be guaranteed. Not only did we have that discussion, in which there was unanimous concern about the potential humanitarian crisis in Gaza-perhaps not even potential-but, as it happens, we had already agreed to have discussions with the Israeli Foreign Minister, who also expressed concern about the humanitarian situation. We will of course be looking to restore direct links, funding and so on to the new Palestinian Government as speedily as that can be achieved. However, we are also very mindful of the situation in Gaza. Again, that is a shared concern. We shall be doing everything that we can to consider how we address it-to a certain extent through the TIM, but also more widely. We have also urged the Israeli Government to release revenues, which as you know they have been withholding. Q177 Mr. Hamilton: You have said that we have urged them to release those revenues, but are we putting further pressure on the Israeli Government? It seems to me that they will be quite concerned, to say the least, about the fact that Gaza is now effectively in the control of the military wing of Hamas and about the effect that that is likely to have on Israeli security. Clearly there is going to be a problem, so has the EU put enough pressure on the Israeli Government, at the same time as reassuring them that we are concerned about Israel's security? Margaret Beckett: Yes we have, and indeed in the past we have. Yesterday, we were prepared to put pressure on, but actually the strong indication was that there was no need. Q178 Mr. Hamilton: Good. I have a further question on that. One of the problems with such a situation, which has involved the most dreadful internecine fighting we have seen among Palestinians for a long time and a terrible loss of life, is that, inevitably, certain nations in the area will just blame Israel. I turned the radio on the other day and I think someone in Damascus was saying, "Actually, this is all Israel's fault." Are the European Union or the British Government going to do anything to tell the Arab world that although we must solve the problem of the conflict in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians-the wider conflict and the issue of recognition-what has happened cannot be laid at the door of Israel directly? It would be tragic if it became the general view that the fact that Palestinians are killing each other, which is a terrible tragedy, is all Israel's fault. It is not Israel's fault, but Israel can do a lot to help. Margaret Beckett: There will undoubtedly be people who take that view and who it suits to continue to proclaim that. If we can make progress on some of the concrete steps that now need to be taken-release of revenues, tackling the humanitarian crisis and things of that kind-for those who are prepared to entertain an answer other than just this is all Israel's fault, an atmosphere will be created in which it is possible to judge that more players are actually involved than simply the Government of Israel. Although I share your view that the conflict in Palestine was tragic, I also take the view that it was not necessary. Q179 Mr. Hamilton: Finally, the EU is one of the Quartet. Is the road map dead? Margaret Beckett: No, not necessarily. Q180 Richard Younger-Ross: There is a real danger that, with Hamas now in effective control of Gaza, there will be an increased number of rocket attacks on Israel, which we would all unreservedly condemn. There is also the danger of Israel's response. Could you say, Foreign Secretary, that, on this occasion, we will make it very clear to Israel that any response that it does make has to be proportionate and that we will not go back to what happened in the Lebanon when the response was clearly disproportionate? Margaret Beckett: Without getting involved in discussions about events of the past, there are certainly two things that your question raises. One is that there have continued to be rocket attacks on Israel, both from Gaza and, indeed, over the last couple of days, from Lebanon-although I understand that they were carried out by Palestinians in Lebanon. We have-everybody has-urged restraint upon Israel, which you will have observed it has shown to a substantial and quite remarkable degree. The issue of the rocket attacks is also a challenge to Hamas because its case was that it had decided to take the political road. In most democracies, the political road does not include throwing people off roofs. Hamas has also made the case that it felt that it had to take control of the security and military situation in Gaza because it was not, as it judged, under control. If in circumstances in which Hamas has clear military control, rockets continue to be fired, that will clearly cast considerable doubt on the good faith it has shown in saying that it will take the political road. That is a serious question for Hamas to consider. Q181 Ms Stuart: We started off dealing with Iran with three Foreign Ministers-French, German and British-going to Tehran and the troika, which was quite a significant step. That has now moved on to what I think the German presidency calls the twin-track approach to Iran. The EU is quite united through the work of Solana who is our high representative. I have two questions that I would like to put to you. In our attempts to restrain Iran from developing its nuclear programme, do you envisage, for example, a return to the troika? Do you envisage a return to the high representative and the old-fashioned foreign policy of three large member states speaking on behalf of the Union? Secondly, what is your assessment of how united the various Foreign Secretaries of EU member states are, and at what point will the EU reach a position of saying that it can no longer negotiate with Iran? How politically united are EU member states? Margaret Beckett: First, you asked me if we would return to the troika, but we have not left it. The E3 plus three continues to be the negotiating body, and Javier is acting as a negotiator-this is a huge compliment to him and richly deserved-not on behalf of the EU, but on behalf of all six of us: the United States, Russia and China, as well as the EU. That remains the position, and when there are discussions about, for example, whether we should consider further moves in the Security Council, they are held at the six level. Javier is obviously an important player; he has an important input, and is our voice with the Iranians, because that is thought to be the appropriate level. There could come a stage when the appropriate level was thought to be Foreign Minister, and so far it has always been envisaged that it would be the group of Foreign Ministers. However, whether we ever get to that stage, given the way in which the Iranians are conducting the negotiations, is another matter. Member states have been absolutely united. Just after I had been appointed and after the meeting in Vienna about 10 days in, which I chaired and when we agreed the package to put to the Iranian Government, there was a tremendous welcome from all our EU colleagues when we reported back to other member states on the progress of the discussions. To be honest, I had wondered whether some would be a little resentful, but no. Some colleagues said how proud they were of the role that the European Union had been able to play in working with others to put such a dramatic set of proposals before the Iranian Government. That has continued to be the case. The time could come when, for one reason or another, there is disagreement about how to go forward, but Javier keeps the Council well informed about the process of the discussions, negotiations and so on, and there is consensus and common ground, I am happy to say. Q182 Ms Stuart: All that without a European Union Foreign Minister. Margaret Beckett: There is one thing to be said for having someone called a high representative, because they can be anything. They can be an official who talks to someone like Larijani, or they can ask to see a Prime Minister or a President. No one says to a high representative, "You are a Foreign Minister, so you will see the Foreign Minister." Q183 Sir John Stanley: After President Sarkozy apparently took everyone by surprise at the G8 by posing a six-month delay in putting the Ahtisaari proposals to a new United Nations Security Council resolution to enable further negotiations to take place between Serbia and the Kosovo Albanians, is the French President now back on board? Margaret Beckett: If I may say so, I do not recognise the way in which you describe that. There was a certain amount of discussion-at the G8 there are of course people with rather different views about Kosovo-but there is widespread acceptance, and the European Union believes, that the Ahtisaari plan is the best way forward. Then there is the question of how to achieve the Ahtisaari plan. I think the idea that a delay might contribute might have been floated, but there was no suggestion that there was some sort of agreement at the G8 that that would happen. Q184 Sir John Stanley: When do you expect the new United Nations Security Council resolution on Kosovo to be presented to the Security Council? Margaret Beckett: Discussions are going on now, and all the time. It depends on whether people identify that sufficient common ground has been reached. It is no secret that the European Union would like the issue to make progress, because we recognise that there are dangers in delay. Q185 Sir John Stanley: Yes, there most certainly are, and they are highlighted repeatedly. What timetable are the British Government working towards to try to get the issue agreed at the United Nations Security Council? Margaret Beckett: The British Government would like it to have been agreed the week before yesterday, but we are continuing to work with all our colleagues and partners to see whether we can get an agreement on the way forward. To be completely fair, immediately after the discussion that I chaired in April during our presidency of the Security Council, there was an agreement that members of the Council would go to Serbia and Kosovo to have discussions for themselves and ascertain what they felt the situation was. That, I think, has helped to clarify the position for a number of them. Q186 Sir John Stanley: It seems likely that, if the United Nations Security Council cannot agree a new resolution on Kosovo and on the implementation of the Ahtisaari plan, the US Administration are likely to proceed unilaterally down the independence for Kosovo road. In that case, would the US Government be supported by the British Government? Margaret Beckett: That is a hypothetical question. I read constantly that the United States might consider unilateral recognition. It has not done so; if it does, we will have to consider with our European partners how we will respond. We are focused-as is the United States-on trying to get an agreed Security Council resolution. Q187 Sir John Stanley: I suggest, Foreign Secretary, that what is not hypothetical is the British Government's position if a United Nations resolution is not obtained. Do we have any view at all on whether Kosovo will remain effectively in limbo, dependent solely on a United Nations Security Council resolution? Margaret Beckett: That territory is sufficiently delicate for me not to want to venture into it. Our goal is to get a Security Council resolution and to implement the Ahtisaari plan-we do not see a more viable way forward-and to do that as early as possible. I do not want to encourage those who are less than enthusiastic about such a course of action by speculating on what might happen if that does not succeed. We are focused on trying to achieve that success. Q188 Chairman: Foreign Secretary, a number of European Union countries are rather apprehensive about this development. It is possible that the EU could split over the question of Kosovo, as was seen, for example, in the unfortunate events in respect of the premature recognition of Croatia in the previous decade. Are we in a situation in which there is absolute determination that there will be only one EU position on Kosovo? Margaret Beckett: After Martti Ahtisaari came to the Council in May, part of the agreement that the EU made was that we would adopt a united position, that we would remain united and that that would very much be our approach. That has continued to be our approach. Those who would prefer not to have the Ahtisaari plan or not to have a Security Council resolution are constantly asserting that the EU is not really united and that this, that or the other country has this, that or the other view-in many cases, to my personal knowledge, entirely incorrectly. So, yes, we are united. We are determined to remain so because we recognise that unity is a vital component of trying to get agreement. Indeed, yesterday we carried a further set of conclusions-a united set of conclusions-which are possibly slightly stronger than the ones that we carried last time. Q189 Chairman: So even if there is no agreement but the United States recognises a unilateral declaration of independence by the Kosovars, the EU will maintain a common position. Are you saying that no EU countries will follow the US? Margaret Beckett: No, I am afraid that I repeat what I said to Sir John. I am extremely reluctant to enter into hypothetical discussions about what might happen if there is no resolution and other people take other steps. The EU is united in its approach that the Ahtisaari plan should be followed, that there should be a resolution as soon as possible, and that that will be in the interests of the EU, not least because of the responsibilities that are then likely to fall on the EU. We are all working hard to get that resolution, and to get it as soon as possible. That is the focus of what we are doing. Chairman: The Committee has just been in Russia. I would like to bring Malcolm Moss in now with some questions about Russia. As you can appreciate, Kosovo was one of the issues that was raised with us by the Russians. Q190 Mr. Moss: Foreign Secretary, you said to this Committee in December that it would not be correct to speak of Russian hostility to the EU. At a remove of more than six months, what would your considered opinion be of EU-Russia relations? Margaret Beckett: There are certainly some areas of particular sensitivity, of which Kosovo is one, and there have been more areas where Russia has expressed stronger disagreement than was the case six months ago, but, no, I do not judge that its basic attitude towards the EU is hostile, not least perhaps because we are, after all, its largest export market. Q191 Mr. Moss: If that is the case, why was the EU-Russia summit in May not more successful? Margaret Beckett: Because there are strains and areas of difficulty, but I would not characterise that summit as a failure. Not as much progress was made as we would have liked, but that is quite often the case with such summits. Q192 Mr. Moss: How would you categorise the prospects for opening up talks with Russia on the post-partnership and co-operation agreement? Margaret Beckett: That was something that we thought might be settled at the summit. It was not, but no doubt the Portuguese will return to it when they take over the presidency. Q193 Mr. Moss: Given the strong bilateral relationships between Russia and some EU member countries, is it in the United Kingdom's interest to pursue relationships under the EU umbrella, or should we have a more unilateral relationship with Russia? Margaret Beckett: Every member state has its own bilateral relationships as well as the relationships that it has under the umbrella of the EU. Yes, I believe that it is in our interests to continue to work with the Russians on issues where we can work with them. Q194 Andrew Mackinlay: If I may return to the issue of Kosovo-it relates to our relations with Russia-Russia argues that it has adhered to the Helsinki Final Act of the late 1970s. For Russia, the very important part of it is that there should be no unilateral variation of the boundaries of European states. Russia says that if there is a concession for Kosovo, we will then say that there is a powerful case in respect of the Russian enclave of Transnistria and the enclaves in Georgia and Armenia. Russia has a point, does it not? Margaret Beckett: Russia always has a point, but I would say that that one is a discussion point. We in the UK and the EU take the view that the position of Kosovo is sui generis. There have of course been, as everywhere, difficult episodes in the history of the areas to which you referred, but there is nothing that matches the Kosovo-Serbian experience, which has indeed, as Martti Ahtisaari concluded, been tragically unique. That means that an outcome that one might have envisaged in other circumstances or other territories does not have any prospects. We have certainly always taken the view, and I have always said to the Russians, that what happens with Kosovo does not have a read-across anywhere else. Q195 Andrew Mackinlay: The Security Council-you might be able to help me on this-dispatched some of its number to Kosovo. They have come back and taken a view that is somewhat less supportive than Ahtisaari's. Is that not correct? Margaret Beckett: I do not think so, no. Q196 Andrew Mackinlay: Is their report in the public domain? Margaret Beckett: I am not sure whether they made a formal report. I do not know exactly who went in the end, but my impression was that people, who nurtured the illusion that there must be some easy way through that an intelligent person could find, thought that if they went to Serbia and Kosovo themselves, they might be able to spot something that Ahtisaari had missed. My impression is that they came back thinking that perhaps they had not spotted it. Q197 Andrew Mackinlay: The final point was called "Hong Kong-plus." It was suggested that Kosovo should get a status short of being a legal international personality with a seat at the United Nations, but that it should have a relationship with Serbia similar to Hong Kong's with the People's Republic of China, which is de jure one nation, two systems. That would not be acceptable to Kosovo but it would be tolerable, and it would help the Serbian politicians and people to whom you referred earlier. You were correct to say that even the most moderate Serbian politician can never concede the loss of Kosovo. Is that not a formula that should be followed? It would vary from Ahtisaari only in one important respect-the international recognition of a sovereign, independent state. Margaret Beckett: At the moment we are hanging our hat on Ahtisaari. If there is common ground about some minor variation on Ahtisaari, it will find acceptance. I do not think that anybody rules out considering anything. I have not heard it characterised in the terms that you use, but we are looking for a way through to get an agreed Security Council resolution. Chairman: We have just a few minutes left. John Horam. Q198 Mr. Horam: As the Chairman said, the Committee has recently been in Russia and Azerbaijan. We have been looking to some extent at the whole area of the former Soviet Union-what Russia calls the "near abroad" as well as Russia itself. There are very important energy considerations and a strong feeling that, if the European Union does not act together, countries in the region may be picked on one by one. I accept your point that we will always have bilateral relations with Russia and those countries, but do you think that there is an important strategic role for the European Union in dealing with that area, which is so important from the point of view of not only foreign policy but energy security? Margaret Beckett: That is a valid point. Another thing that we agreed yesterday was a strong statement. The Committee probably recalls that the German presidency had as one of its goals the strengthening of the European neighbourhood policy, which we support as long as it is not seen as an alternative to membership. Q199 Mr. Horam: Or a step towards membership. Margaret Beckett: Well, no, it could facilitate that perhaps. We agreed yesterday a development of the European neighbourhood policy, in which we specifically invited Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan to move closer to the European Union on a case-by-case basis and perhaps align themselves with our declarations, démarches or positions on common foreign and security policy issues. We are looking at encouraging steps towards better governance-perhaps investment and things of that kind. On a case-by-case basis, we are looking at that wider neighbourhood and how we can encourage the process that I was describing in the case of Turkey-encouraging reform and development along the lines that we in the European Union would very much like to see-and Azerbaijan is very much in that category. Q200 Mr. Horam: So you would see the European Union playing a strategic role in this area? Margaret Beckett: I do not know whether I would say we play a strategic role, but certainly we encourage reform and development and we recognise, as you said in your question at the outset, that there is an interest for the European Union in this in a variety of ways. Q201 Mr. Horam: As you know, the European Union has played a role in Uzbekistan on human rights issues. Margaret Beckett: Indeed. Q202 Mr. Horam: Would that be typical of the sort of role that we are talking about-that balance between human rights on one hand and foreign policy, energy-type issues on the other? Margaret Beckett: That is very much part of the approach to the neighbourhood policy-to try to balance these different issues and to make it clear that this is all a matter of concern to the European Union. Q203 Chairman: Is there any immediate prospect of enhancing the European Union's representation in Azerbaijan? Margaret Beckett: The European Union's representation? Q204 Chairman: Yes. That issue was raised with us. Apparently, there is a problem about lack of consistent engagement. Margaret Beckett: It is new to me, I must admit. Q205 Chairman: Perhaps we can have a note. Margaret Beckett: I am not aware of that concern. Ms Stuart: May I leave you with a positive comment? This is something that we picked up in both Russia and Azerbaijan. I am referring to the work that the UK Government are doing in governance building. We heard very positive comments about the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the exchanges there. I just wanted to put that on the record. Andrew Mackinlay: Who is in charge of that? Chairman: I used to chair the board and Gisela Stuart- Ms Stuart: I am still a governor. Chairman: She is declaring an interest. Can we have one final quick question? Q206 Mr. Keetch: I endorse entirely what Ms Stuart and the Chairman said about Azerbaijan, where there is extensive British involvement, both commercial and diplomatic and very successful, but on climate change, in March 2007, the European Council set a number of targets: a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and a 20% target for renewables, to include 10% biofuels. I accept it is very early days, but how is progress towards those targets going and, interestingly, how will we ensure-the UK has been at the forefront of this-that our colleagues attempt to meet those targets along with us? Margaret Beckett: It is indeed extremely early days. The answer is a bit like what we hear at Leader of the House questions-not next week. Obviously, we have asked the Commission to look at this and draw up proposals. I think some parts of the conclusions will be easier to achieve than others, but certainly one of the things that we took considerable encouragement from was the fact that, as we had hoped, the basis of the agreement at the spring Council was a springboard for getting agreement at the G8 on a process that envisages something to follow the Kyoto protocol when it expires in 2012. I was talking the other day to our colleague, Elliot Morley, who was my junior Minister on this issue for some time, and he and I agreed that if you had asked us two years ago, at the time of the Gleneagles summit, when we were trying to get agreement to move forward, whether we could possibly envisage an agreement of that kind by 2007, we would definitely have said no, and particularly in relation to the agreement that the proper negotiations will be in the framework of the UN framework convention. So although it is a bit early to say exactly how the European Union will deliver on the concrete goals about carbon capture and storage for power stations and so on-a lot of work needs to be done there-certainly we have already had quite an achievement building on that, in terms of getting some momentum behind the Bali negotiations. Mr. Keetch: I dare say our constituents wish you good luck on that. If it is not the case for constitutions or treaties, certainly all our constituents want to see some effect on climate change. Chairman: Foreign Secretary, we are very grateful. You have given us a very wide-ranging series of answers and we know that this week in particular you are very busy. We will no doubt be able to ask more questions in the debate tomorrow and make more points, but we hope that you come out of the weekend with something that we as a Committee can be happy with and we certainly look forward to asking further questions on the outcome. We thank your colleagues as well.
|