Mr.
Hands: But what about all the cases that do not involve
consulting the national’s home country or any financial
transfer? One could quite easily get an entirely different opinion
from, say, the Finnish and British consulates on a case involving child
support or adoption, or the various other issues that come before
consular officials. Surely the Minister must see that there is no
mechanism in place to prevent shopping
around?
Mr.
Murphy: That is an entirely fair question. All the
questions have been fair, but that one is even more so—not just
because I thought about it when preparing for the debate and sought the
assurances that the hon. Gentleman is asking for. Not wishing to
second-guess or predict the unpredictable nature of human behaviour in
times of difficulty, I considered the issue very carefully at the
weekend and again today. I am assured, and reassured, that in host
countries there are informal networks involving different EU member
states’ diplomatic posts and consular services, and that
information is exchanged with a view to watching for exactly the type
of thing that the hon. Gentleman suggests might happen—shopping
around among different consular posts looking for the answer that is
wanted, and continuing until it is given.
Perhaps I may
add that if in a third country we were to represent an EU national
whose country was not represented there, we should have to seek the
permission of the country where the citizen was, before being able to
act for that person. For example if the UK was asked
to provide support for a citizen of another EU member state who was in
prison and wanted support in that situation, naturally the country in
which the prison and citizen were situated would ask on what basis the
UK would provide the support. That is another protection against the
type of tourism that the hon. Gentleman quite reasonably asks
about. Mr.
Francois: I want to ask about passports. As I understand
matters, the Government have said they broadly approve of the placing
of the wording of article 20 in United Kingdom passports. I think that
they are against inserting a retrospective sticker, but they are in
favour in principle of putting the wording into new passports. Have I
understood correctly that that is the Government’s
view?
Mr.
Murphy: Typically, the hon. Gentleman has understood it
perfectly.
Mr.
Francois: I am grateful for the compliment. That being the
case, and as the Minister said earlier that he would like the wording
to be simplified somewhat, does he have that simplified wording to read
out to the
Committee?
Mr.
Murphy: I do not, but we have until 2010 to come up
together with that simplified wording so that our respective
constituents can, as they jet off on holiday, read it in plain English,
stamped on their UK passport, with no
stickers.
Mr.
Hands: I have one other question on the disparity, or
disequilibrium, between different EU countries’ representation.
Inevitably a small country is far less likely to be represented than a
country such as the United Kingdom. What mechanisms does the Minister
think will be in place to compensate larger countries for providing
consular services to smaller
ones?
Mr.
Murphy: The main one is cost recovery on any financial
advances that are offered to
citizens.
Mr.
Hands: I understand that in relation to financial advances
and cash payments, but what about the amount of staff time spent, which
could be considerable on a long legal case? If, for the sake of
argument, the British embassy provided a Lithuanian national with the
services of a local lawyer, how would we be compensated for all the
time spent on
that?
Mr.
Murphy: There is no circumstance in which the British
embassy would provide any national—even a UK
national—with a lawyer, so the idea of our providing one for a
Lithuanian would rightly have the Daily Mail pretty angry,
although not as angry as I would
be.
Mr.
Hands: I thank the Minister for that clarification;
perhaps I should try a more theoretical example. If there were a case
that involved significant staff time in our embassy, high commission or
consulate abroad, what mechanisms would be in place to recover the
expenditure from the citizen’s home
country?
Mr.
Murphy: As I said earlier, there were 98 cases across the
planet. The information that the Foreign Office has is clear: the costs
in that regard have not been of the type that the hon. Gentleman has
alluded to. However, we keep these matters very closely under review,
as other member states would.
We should
also reflect on the fact that we do not have consular service centres
in, for example, many of the French-speaking west African countries,
such as Niger, Mali and Togo. There is no UK mission in those
countries, but support is provided to our citizens if necessary. The
French did a fantastic job in the evacuation of Chad, which involved
some UK nationals. We were not represented there in the way that the
French were. On one hand, we are talking about 98 citizens across the
planet; on the other hand, there are many countries in which we are not
represented but where our citizens, under article
20 —once it is stamped in their passports from
2010—will have a clear understanding of the rights that they
enjoy.
Mr.
Hands: Presumably the Minister sees this as a potential
opportunity for further rationalisation of our representation abroad.
He mentioned French west Africa, for example, where a number of British
embassies have closed in recent years. Presumably, if we have access to
the French ability to provide consular assistance, that could well lead
to the closure of further British outposts. Is that part of what he is
planning?
Mr.
Murphy: Absolutely
not.
The
Chairman: If no more hon. Members wish to ask questions,
we will proceed to the debate on the
motion. Motion
made, and Question
proposed, That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 5947/08 and
Addenda 1 and 2, European Commission Communication, Diplomatic and
consular protection of union citizens in third countries; recalls that
such Communications are not legally binding; underlines that the
provision of consular assistance remains a matter for Member States;
and in this context, welcomes the Commission’s Communication as
a contribution to continuing reflections on promoting consular
co-operation among EU Member States.—[Mr. Jim
Murphy.] 5.11
pm
Mr.
Francois: May I begin by thanking the right hon. Member
for Streatham for so ably introducing our debate on behalf of the
European Scrutiny Committee? May I also congratulate the Minister on
something? A relatively small band of people in this country have read
the Lisbon treaty. He is one, I am another and other hon. Members in
this room have done that, too. My hon. Friend the Member for
Hammersmith and Fulham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells
are among the select band of people in the United Kingdom who have read
the beast from start to finish. I congratulate the Minister on his
award from The House Magazine as Commons Minister of the Year.
That did not escape our attention. I say without being churlish in any
way that he won an award and the people of Ireland voted no, so I think
we are square. It is a pleasure to see him in his place
today. We
have already heard that EU co-operation in the area of consular
protection dates back to the amended article 20 of the treaty of Rome.
If you can stand it,
Mr. Bercow, I shall repeat it, and you will see the reason
why in a minute. Article 20
states: “Every
citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of a third country in
which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented, be
entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authorities of any
Member State, on the same conditions as the nationals of that
State.” A
Council decision in 1995—for the record, it was decision
95/553/EC—unanimously, as was required, provided for
co-operation between member states in specific instances, such as the
death or arrest of or violence against citizens of unrepresented
states. It is worth noting that the Government argued
strenuously—during the Nice treaty negotiations, I
believe—for a specific article excluding passports and identity
cards from areas in which the EC could propose provisions under this
area. Article
20 and the decisions based on it have led to the right for citizens of
unrepresented EU states to request UK consular help on the same basis
as UK citizens. The numbers seeking help are, currently at least, not
very high. The Government state on page 7 of the document bundle that
in 2006-07, only 98 cases of EU citizens being supported by UK missions
were reported, compared with a total of 34,874 cases in which UK
subjects received support, so the percentage is very
low. The
European Commission has now sought to increase co-operation and its
role in that area. In its green paper of 5 December 2007 and subsequent
action plan, it identified consular protection
as “one
of the strategic policy objectives for the
Commission.” The
reason behind that is given on page 35 of the bundle, which states that
further co-operation in that area would be, in the Commission’s
opinion,
a “tangible
expression of Union
Citizenship” and
that
although “it
is indeed the case that Member States have primary responsibilities in
this area. The Commission wishes to help them discharge those
responsibilities. A progressive and gradual approach is therefore
necessary.” As
someone who served in the Whips Office, I know what “We are here
to help” sometimes means. It seems that the Commission has made
that generous offer for its own purposes. In other words, the
Commission tacitly admits that there is only a thin legal basis for
proposing further initiatives in that area, at least under the current
treaty, but because it believes that doing so would help build European
citizenship, it seems that it intends gradually to push the rules to
the limits
nevertheless. What
is proposed? The Commission’s green paper proposes a number of
initiatives to push forward its stated aim of expressing “Union
citizenship”, which are summarised on page 2 of our bundle.
First, it proposes ensuring that member states publish the wording of
article 20 inside their passports. It has said that it could be done
either as new passports are printed or, curiously, by placing stickers
inside existing passports. Secondly, it proposes establishing common
consular offices, which could provide financial assistance to EU
citizens in distress. Thirdly, it also proposes joint training of
consular staff. Fourthly, it proposes broadening the scope of consular
assistance to include non-EU family members,
something that the UK does not do generally at the moment, as the
Minister will know. Lastly, it proposes establishing procedures for the
repatriation of the remains of dead EU citizens. Her
Majesty’s Government have published a response, which is
included on page 6 of the bundle. Their responses show differing levels
of enthusiasm for the Commission’s various proposals. For
instance, on the subject of article 20 being reproduced in passports,
the Government have agreed with the proposal in principle, but, as the
Minister has reiterated today, they would like to see clearer wording,
which we do not have available unfortunately—I will come back to
that
too. With
regards to EU consular offices, the Government have said that they are
concerned with the proposal and
do “not
favour a system of common
offices”, but
still seek further “clarification”. The Government do see
a role for exchange of best practice in joint training. The Government
have said that extending consular protection to non-EU family members
is “unlikely to be feasible”—their
words—and that they are concerned that the Commission will try
to extend article 20 to include it. The Government have agreed that
there is scope for co-operation on the repatriation of remains, but
wish to do that between member states rather than with the Commission.
I hope that I have summarised the Commission’s proposals and the
Government’s response for the Committee.
Before
considering the responses further, it is worth noting that the European
Commission has already said, on page 14 of the bundle,
that “the
entry into force of the Reform Treaty will provide a clear legal basis
for EU law in this
area.” I
entirely accept, Mr. Bercow, that you do not want the rest
of this afternoon to turn into an ersatz debate on the Lisbon treaty,
but one part of that treaty is very germane to the debate, and I hope
that I will be able to make that plain to you and the Committee. The
quote refers to the fact that the Lisbon treaty would have inserted a
new legal base into article 20, which would have become article 23 of
the treaty of Rome under the consolidated text, if the Lisbon treaty
had come into force. The treaty of Rome says that the EU will
henceforth be able to pass binding directives to stipulate in detail
how member states must fulfil the responsibility contained in article
20. If we take article 20 as written, Lisbon
adds: “The
Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure and
after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt directives
establishing the coordination and cooperation measures necessary to
facilitate such
protection.” I
raise that because, if Lisbon had come into force that would have
affected the interpretation of article 20, and binding European
legislation could have been brought in. Very importantly, under the
Lisbon treaty’s provisions, that legislation would be decided by
qualified majority voting, so the UK would not have a veto. I do not
know whether, when the Minister did his weekend reading, he missed it,
but under the Lisbon treaty, the situation would be taken further, and
member states’ rights, which he pressed so hard in his opening
remarks, would be seriously fettered. The situation, therefore, would
have gone further than he suggested to the Committee. With the Irish
having said no, logic dictates that there is no legal basis for
furthering that proposal, so he should—
hopefully—be reassured that those fears will not be realised. If
he could say that he entirely respects the Irish decision and that that
is the end of the matter, the Committee would be very grateful, but I
suspect that we will not hear
that. In
conclusion, the Government’s response to the proposals shows
differing levels of enthusiasm. Currently, they retain a veto, and
could block them coming into force, but were Lisbon to come into force,
those provisions could be amended by legislation, even if the UK
Government objected—yet another reason why the treaty was such a
bad deal for Britain and why it should not come back from the dead.
However, despite that, the one proposal for which the Government have
voiced particular approval is for inserting the words of article 20
into new UK passports. It would appear, however, that the legal effect
of those words might still be unclear. The Government want to clarify
the wording, but they cannot present that wording to the Committee
today. Yet they are asking us to take note of the document. As the
Minister cannot tell us the wording that could in future go into UK
passports, the Opposition should reject the Government motion that we
take note of the document. We urge other Committee members to
support
us. 5.21
pm
| 
