John
Hemming: I thank the right hon. Member for Streatham for
his introduction, and other Members for their very interesting
arguments. Obviously, this week, we await the very interesting judgment
from the judicial review of whether the Government are in error in
working towards ratifying the Lisbon treaty. We do not know what that
judgment will be or what will happen with the Lisbon treaty, although
it looks as if it is dead, but we agree here that the EU Commission
should not muscle in on the territory of consular services. I think
that all parties agree on that.
Consular
services are a critical part of our emergency services to residents
abroad. The difficulty is that we have information on how many non-UK
citizens have been provided with services by UK missions, but we do not
have the alternative information on how many UK citizens have been
assisted where there is no UK mission. The example of Chad could well
have given us more than 98 people. One of the useful proposals is for
compensation for staff time. If half of the UK’s consulate
support in a particular country is for non-UK citizens, we should be
looking for compensation. Putting aside the issue of the Lisbon treaty,
around which remain many uncertainties—although it appears to be
dead—it is agreed that consular services are an important part
of member states’ competences and that the EU Commission should
take its tanks off our
lawn. 5.24
pm
Mr.
Heathcoat-Amory: I was pleased by some of the
Minister’s assurances—he does not hear me say that very
often. Nevertheless, I caution him not to fail to appreciate the sheer
political momentum behind this additional policy area being taken over
by the Commission and not to fall victim to an activist European Court
of Justice. In answer to my earlier questions, the Minister said he was
satisfied that existing article 20 did not and would not give citizens
of other EU states a right to
consular assistance from the UK. I hope that he is right. On studying
article 20 carefully, it does establish an entitlement. Although that
is qualified by the
words “on
the same conditions as the nationals of that
State”— in
this case, the UK—there is a comma before that subsidiary
qualification. I can therefore imagine it being argued before a court
that the entitlement is established in the first part of the article
and that the qualification does not undermine the entitlement. It could
be argued that the entitlement it qualified only to the extent that the
conditions—a fairly ambiguous word—should be on the same
level as that accorded to our own citizens. I can see it being argued
before a court that there is an entitlement, which could very easily
become a
right. My
experience of these legal matters is that the Foreign Office can be
rather innocent. On many occasions, bold assurances given by Ministers
of the British Government early on in negotiations have been undermined
by a succession of retreats and eventually a court judgment. That is a
sad and familiar story, which I have some familiarity with because I am
a former Minister in that Department. I hope that the Minister has
taken careful legal advice and that he considers the article to be
judge-proof. The
Commission will certainly try to undermine the article. The
communication asserts that one of its aims is to ensure that all EU
citizens have access to consular assistance. We therefore know which
side it would be on, but then it does not cost them anything. It would
cost us something. That is another matter: who is guarding the money?
Smaller states have every interest in having their nationals looked
after by bigger states. Again, which side would they be on in any court
case? To
continue with the legal argument, although this country has not given a
right to its citizens, we frequently give consular assistance in
practice. We are all familiar with cases from our constituencies. I can
imagine the citizen of another country—a small state such as
Malta—alleging in court that he was not given practical
assistance on the same terms and it being decided that he should have
been. He would therefore obtain a right in practice. In other words,
his case would have the effect of legally codifying our existing
practice. I can imagine a number of routes whereby this measure could
be subjected to European Court of Justice cases. Such cases would have
the effect of drawing us down the route of having to give assistance in
all
cases. I
hope that the Minister will resist any suggestion that the solution is
to hand this matter over to the European Commission to organise. If the
big EU projects such as the common agricultural policy are anything to
go by, it is fabulously bad at organising anything on the ground. It
has little experience in doing so. We all know that the European budget
is a legend of mismanagement. It would be a great mistake to try to
solve these problems by taking the matter out of the hands of member
states altogether and giving it to the Commission. Again, that
underlies a lot of what the Commission is after in its
communication. Secondly,
I want to say a little more about costs. When the Minister replies,
perhaps he could supply some figures. I am not surprised that he does
not have some costs relating to our existing help to citizens of other
member states. He said that very few such citizens are being given this
form of assistance, but such cases
will increase. International air travel and overseas holidays will
continue to increase, global warming or not. The age of mass travel has
only
started. Also,
there are now more demands in foreign countries after disasters,
whether natural or political. Perhaps at one time people used to look
instinctively to themselves to get out of trouble, but now, with
additional publicity and a more assertive public, they look to the
Government. To pick up on a point made ably by my hon. Friend the
Member for Rayleigh, that could be given a big impetus if, by whatever
means, the Lisbon treaty passes either as a whole or in part. If the
external action service is set up, it will encourage small member
states to shut their embassies. They will say, “It’s all
being done for us. We’re paying through the European Union
budget, so we’ll withdraw even from our existing
embassies.” The trend towards the closure of overseas embassies
by small member states will be accentuated, and the cost to big member
states of looking after citizens of other countries could rise
considerably.
I am a bit
surprised that no work was done on the matter. I say that as a member
of the Foreign Affairs Committee, which considers the Foreign Office
budget and is often alarmed by Treasury cuts or Treasury failures fully
to underwrite additional costs incurred by the Foreign Office all over
the world. It would be an odd allocation of resources if the money of a
British Foreign Office under great financial pressure—a pressure
that will increase in future years as the national debt
increases—was taken up in looking after not our own citizens but
those of other member states.
Frankly, I
think that it will create resentment. Presumably, the
Government’s job is to try to make us all love the European
Union. One way not to do it is to create more free riders and a feeling
of resentment that if we get into trouble abroad after a natural
disaster, the other people in the queue will be paid for not from their
taxes but from those of every other country in the European Union and
their relations from non-EU states, to quote the Commission document.
On those grounds, great caution is needed, and I do not think that the
Minister measured up to it fully. I am certainly inclined towards the
Committee’s expression of its disapproval of the
proposals. 5.32
pm
Mr.
Hands: This has been an extremely useful debate. We in the
European Scrutiny Committee have been struggling with the issue for
more than six months now. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for
Streatham for his introduction to the debate and to my fellow Committee
member, the right hon. Member for Wells.
To return to
the point about Commission creep, I think that we are all in favour of
a good voluntary arrangement. I do not think that anybody would want
British embassies, high commissions and consulates abroad to turn away
other EU nationals who are in distress or difficulty or have any kind
of problem but who do not have their own representation. However, we
are considering a move to a codified agreement that may be contrary to
UK interests and could lead, through Commission creep, to the effective
takeover of consular services by the Commission. The difference between
an
entitlement and a right, which was ably stated by my right hon. Friend,
goes to the centre of the argument. As soon as we create a right to
such services, we open ourselves up to
trouble. I
have two specific points to make. The first concerns the
Minister’s answer about the legal basis. I asked him about his
most recent letter to the European Scrutiny Committee in March, and I
was concerned by his answer. He seemed to say that the 27 countries
were all quite clear on the one hand, but that the Commission was
equally clear on the other. He put it down to the legal advice given to
the Commission. It worries me greatly that we seem to have two polar
opposite views of the implications. Before we sign up to the proposals,
we should at least try to sort out what the situation is. The Minister
did not seem to be totally in a position to tell us why the Commission
believed that article 20 created rights for it, and that needs to be
sorted out.
The second
issue relates to how consular missions will evolve over the next 10 to
20 years, and I am seriously worried about that. I mentioned that I had
had experience of seeking consular help in difficult times. I also
happen to be a dual national, so I can seek consular assistance from
another country, although I have not done so for 16 years. If we are
not careful, however, the Commission will take over consular
representation.
The first
thing that various countries, including ours, will do is close their
consular representation on the basis that other countries could provide
the same services—we might, for example, close our consulate in,
say, Côte d’Ivoire because the French could provide those
services. Eventually, only one EU country might be providing consular
assistance and it would become the de facto European mission in the
relevant country. That process would not take too long.
In
Westminster Hall, we recently looked at the real-terms cuts to the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget, and other countries will face
similar pressures. I see a situation evolving—those involved
might called this rationalisation—in which the number of EU
countries represented eventually declines to one. That country’s
mission would de facto, if not de jure, become the one responsible for
European representation. That would effectively create what we know the
European Commission wants to create and what its legal advisers say
article 20 would create.
We have not
got too many answers today. I remain deeply concerned about the
direction set out in this document and I think that the Committee does,
too.
5.37
pm
Mr.
Murphy: I am delighted to respond to the specific points
raised by Opposition Members. I start by thanking the hon. Member for
Rayleigh for his kind comments about my award from The House
Magazine. I was genuinely surprised to receive it, although I was
also pretty delighted. My award shows that at least something concrete
has come from the whole ratification process. As I said in our debate
last week, however, I do not intend to wander down the road marked
“Lisbon treaty debate.” We have had 25 days of that, and
it has been just about enough.
I am in a
similar position to the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham in that
I am entitled to take up Irish citizenship, although I have never done
so.
Indeed, after last week I am perhaps less likely to do so, although if I
had, it could have made the result closer by one vote. I also have the
right to take up South African citizenship, although I will never do
so. I have that right by virtue of having grown up in South Africa at a
time when the regime forced South African citizenship on immigrants for
its own vile political purposes. However, that is yet another debate
that I will not be tempted into. On the
specific points that have been raised, the hon. Member for Hammersmith
and Fulham quoted my letter about the Commission, which is on page 152
of the small bundle of documents supporting our informed debate.
However, it is the Commission that is saying that the Lisbon treaty
would provide a clear legal basis for EU law on this issue. As I said,
there is real clarity already; from member states’ perspective,
there is no question but that there is legal uncertainty.
The hon.
Gentleman also said—I scribbled this down, so I hope that I am
quoting him accurately—that we need to be clearer before we sign
up to this measure. Yes, we need to be clear, but we are not going to
sign up even though we are clear. We have no intention of signing
whatsoever and we are clear about the legal situation. We are clear
about our position, which is shared by every other member state. We are
not signing up. This is a Commission communication that creates no new
legal
powers. The
hon. Gentleman mentioned the reductions in consular services by the
Foreign Office, or by any other member state, by virtue of the trends
that he and the right hon. Member for Wells spoke about. However, that
is not, as he suggests, the position of Her Majesty’s
Government. To make such a point underestimates, unfairly, what is
provided for. I know that the hon. Gentleman accepts that our embassies
and posts provide myriad support services, not just consular services.
It is important in this context that, regardless of which party is in
power, Her Majesty’s Government continue to play a leading
diplomatic role across the world, in addition to providing consular
support. We will make decisions on the degree of investment in European
and international capitals based on a variety of facts and priorities.
The hon. Gentleman should not read too much into his own comments on
this
matter. The
hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley spoke clearly about the fact that
there is a balance to be struck. Some 98 EU citizens have been
supported across the world and the balance means UK nationals being
supported in other countries. It is important to get that into
perspective. It is also important that a version of article 20 is
printed in future
passports. The
right hon. Member for Wells mentioned the dangers of article 20 and how
it could be misinterpreted, misunderstood and everything else. Her
Majesty’s Government signed up to article 20 in 1993. Was that
before or after the right hon. Gentleman was Europe Minister? I can
never recall when he held that office. Certainly, article 20 was signed
up to under a different Government. I think that he was Europe Minister
after that time, so I am sure that he will have done his best to
prevent the type of thing that he is worried about from happening. If
he wishes to share his experience of doing that, I am always happy to
learn from
him. Among
other points that the right hon. Gentleman made, he mentioned my not
being able to provide some financial details, including exactly how
much it has cost
Her Majesty’s Government to support the 98
people across the world. I have not come here to provide that sort
information. If he thinks back to being Europe Minister, when he sat in
the cavernous, wonderful Foreign and Commonwealth Office and was
provided with figures, I am sure that he can imagine his officials
saying, “Minister, to collate information on 98 people across
the globe will cost you a remarkable amount in comparison to the
limited nature of a challenge that only involves 98
people.” I do not have the figures this evening, on the basis
that it would cost more to collate them than it costs to run these
arrangements. Mr.
Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Minister be slightly more
imaginative and look ahead a little bit? The Foreign Office finds it
terribly difficult ever to imagine that the future will be any
different from the past, but the legal position changes all the time,
with new member states coming in and with different attitudes in the
court, and things are never static. Can he not just look ahead a little
bit and see what might happen, if this measure were implemented, in
respect of future trends involving more member states in other parts of
the world? Rather than simply talking about the past, will he just jump
ahead for once and try to map out the future, because we are
legislating, almost by definition, for what will happen, not for what
happened in the
past?
Mr.
Murphy: We are not legislating. We are discussing
legislation that was agreed by the right hon. Gentleman’s
Government in 1993. I am doing my best to support legislation that his
Government signed up to. Perhaps that is the context in which this
conversation should take
place. To
set aside that slightly discordant party political note for a moment
and simply reflect the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman offered
his criticism, I think the Foreign Office is exceptional at looking
ahead. I am sure that it was very good when he was the Minister for
Europe. It is a remarkable institution that is able effectively to
scenario plan for the future, foremost perhaps of all diplomatic
services in the
world. On
the points about costs—I said this in my opening
remarks—of course we continue to keep such things under review,
but Ministers and Governments should advocate solutions to identified
problems. It is not our view that the support of 98 UK nationals around
the planet is an identified problem, particularly when we reflect, as
the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said so well, that a balance is
required. Similarly,
we do not know how many UK nationals are supported. Diplomatic posts
from other EU member states would not thank us for asking them to go
through a complicated resource accounting process every time a British
national in a country in which we are not represented sought that type
of
advice.
| 
