Gillian
Merron: On funding generally, I emphasise that we
want access to EU funding to be more flexible, because it is not easy
to access it, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out. I cannot
specifically comment on our French friends, but I will gladly return to
her point on that. Currently, the situation with the overseas
association decision is that some of the overseas territories are
eligible to receive money directly. We want that to continue, but of
course some overseas territories get moneys through regional
development funding. My concern and that of the Government is to ensure
that the right support gets to the right people at the right time and
in the easiest way. Improvements can be made and the Green Paper gives
us the opportunity to do
so.
Andrew
Mackinlay: First, will the documents be submitted formally
for consideration by the overseas territories representatives during
their visit to London? Secondly, was this matter was flagged up by the
Foreign Office when it gave evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign
Affairs, of which you and I are a member, Mr. Pope, when we
conducted our inquiry on overseas
territories?
Gillian
Merron: May I ask my hon. Friend to repeat the second part
of the question? I am afraid that I missed
it.
Andrew
Mackinlay: No doubt the Minister will have the Foreign
Affairs Committee’s recently published report in her brief. Did
the Foreign Office include the Green Paper in its evidence to us or
invite us tantalisingly to consider it? If not, why
not?
Gillian
Merron: I will reflect on the second point. We welcomed
the Foreign Affairs Committee report. In fact, I believe that we have
accepted most of the recommendations. Where that is not the case, we
have responded to it.
The
consultative council came out of our previous White Paper and is a much
valued opportunity. The Green Paper will be discussed this week. It was
launched on 1 July, which was after the Foreign Affairs Committee
inquiry. Therefore, it could not have been used when the Foreign Office
appeared before the Committee. Of course, I or my colleagues will be
more than happy to discuss the Green Paper with the Foreign Affairs
Committee should it wish to do
so.
Andrew
Mackinlay: I would like to ask the Minister again: will
the bundle of documents be considered by the overseas
territories’ representatives during their meeting in London?
Also, she told us that there would be a period of consultation when the
overseas territories could make their own representations. How and when
is it intended that the House will be made acquainted—cognizant
of—the representations of the overseas territories as a result
of that
consultation?
Gillian
Merron: The UK Government did, of course, encourage the
overseas territories to respond and in July the then Minister wrote to
the heads of territory Governments to encourage them to respond. We
provided a summary paper of the main issues and the Minister offered
further assistance to the territories if it was required, but none was
requested. Responses from the territories are individual to them. The
consultation period has only just closed. There is no obligation on
them to consult or clear their response with the UK Government, prior
to submission. To the best of my knowledge, the Falklands and St.
Helena responded. Until I have had the opportunity to meet all the
other leaders in the coming week, it would be wrong of me to say
something to the Committee that I cannot
substantiate.
Jo
Swinson: Further to that, I take the Minister’s
point that the overseas territories should have been encouraged to
respond, but to what extent are their views fed into our
Government’s response? Surely, that is vital,
because—let’s face it—more weight will probably be
attached to the UK Government’s official response than to the
responses of all the overseas territories. That is the key point in
ensuring that their feedback is contained in the Government’s
response.
Gillian
Merron: The hon. Lady is generous in commenting on the
weight of the UK Government’s position, but although I take her
point, it was for the individual territories to make their own
representations; there was no requirement. I realise that the hon. Lady
is not suggesting that we should have required them to do so. There was
no requirement for them to go through the Government. Of course, there
were discussions between the Foreign Office and the overseas
territories, but it would be neither true nor right to say that the
overseas territories made their submissions, in any way, through the UK
Government. Indeed, we encouraged them to do it directly. That is right
and proper. Consultations and discussions with our overseas territories
on this matter, as with any other, are frequent and
regular.
Mr.
Simpson: Following on from that, it is likely that the
French will have co-ordinated the response of their overseas
territories. Rightly, the Minister has made it clear that how the
individual overseas territories go about responding is up to them, but
my Committee colleagues are pressing her on the fact that there must be
some degree of co-ordination in terms of advice. One of the points that
comes out of the paper under discussion is that although the
territories are individual, they have a number of things in common. I
suspect that we would like to press the Minister a little further on
what exactly has been done.
Gillian
Merron: I should reiterate—I have the paper in
front of me—that the then Minister wrote to the heads of
territories in July, enclosing a summary of the paper and encouraging
them to respond. Committee members might feel that we should have
sought more to come through us—I do not know; it is a matter of
opinion. But that was not the
case. I
emphasise that this was not a hands-off affair. Constant discussions
take place between officials and Ministers at the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office. I spoke to the Governors at the end of last week
and, as I have mentioned, I will be meeting all the leaders of the
overseas territories in the coming week. This is work in progress. The
formal consultation has closed. We will seek to get the best for our
overseas territories, working with them. That is why the consultative
council this week is
important.
Mr.
Simpson: To take the discussion forward slightly, what
consultations has the Minister had, or does she intend to have, with
those members of the EU that do not at present have overseas
territories? Obviously, only a minority do, although a number of
European Governments—for example, the Germans—had
colonies. It is important for Britain to put its case about its
territories to the other countries that make up the
majority.
Gillian
Merron: The hon. Gentleman is right; the UK, along with
Denmark, France and the Netherlands, has an interest in overseas
territories. However, the UK Government will work on behalf of the UK
territories in the way that I described in my opening remarks. I assure
the Committee that we will continue the discussions with all the
relevant bodies to secure the outcome that we
seek.
Andrew
Mackinlay: I want to take the Minister back to her reply.
She said that the Green Paper was published on 1 July by the European
Commission. Is she really saying to the Committee that when Sir Peter
Ricketts opened the Foreign Office post on 1 July, he said, “Oh,
what an amazing coincidence: a Green Paper on overseas
territories”? Is she really suggesting that the Foreign Office
had no early sight or cognisance of the draft Green Paper, which it
should have acquainted the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs with
previously? Also, why has she not subsequently written to the Foreign
Affairs Committee, drawing its attention to the Green Paper in time for
it to offer some observations?
Gillian
Merron: I must be honest with the Committee: I feel at a
bit of a disadvantage. Committee members will be aware that I was glad
to take up the responsibilities of this post just over three weeks ago,
so I am sure that they will be gentle—or perhaps not. I regret
that I cannot give the direct answer that my hon. Friend seeks. I am
afraid that in my previous post at the Department for International
Development, overseas territories was not a matter to which I applied
myself in the detail that I do now, but I shall gladly write to the
Committee on the points that have been raised.
I also assure
the Committee again that, as I suggested, there was dialogue in London
with representatives of the overseas territories, and that it has
indeed informed Her Majesty’s Government’s response. By
way of comment
to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, before 1 July the FCO did
know that there would be a Green Paper, but the detail of it was not
certain. Mr.
Simpson: Will the Minister share with the Committee any
initial Foreign Office thoughts about alternatives to the development
model? Basically, the EU paper argues that the model is out of date, so
has the Foreign Office managed to bring together some initial thoughts
on what an alternative might be?
Gillian
Merron: I cannot offer that, specifically, at this stage,
but I reiterate my absolute assurance in respect of wanting to see the
moneys at the right time and in the right place, and their being given
more flexibly.
The
Chairman: If there are no more 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. 11238 and
Addendum 1, the European Commission Communication: Green Paper: Future
Relations between the EU and the Overseas Countries and Territories;
recalls that such Communications are consultation documents and are not
legally binding; welcomes the Commission’s Communication as the
start of the process of the renegotiation of the Overseas Association
Decision; and supports the Government’s
response.—[Gillian
Merron.] 4.58
pm
Mr.
Simpson: Broadly, the Conservatives welcome the paper and
the work done by the Select Committee, but it is obvious from the
questions that I and other Committee members have put that we are
concerned about several issues that, if not addressed, could be
detrimental to our overseas territories. I hope that the Minister has
taken those questions on board, and that we will have a further
opportunity to debate this important subject, perhaps on the Floor of
the House, because many hon. Members from all parts of the House feel
strongly about it. At a future stage, when the Foreign Office has
developed a grand plan or strategy, the Minister might want to put it
to the House more formally, so that we might test it to the benefit of
all concerned.
4.59
pm
Andrew
Mackinlay: I trespass on this Committee because I am not a
member of it. However, I feel strongly about the interests of the
overseas territories, and, as you know, Mr. Pope, from
painful earache experience, I have been going on about the issue for
10 years in the Foreign Affairs Committee, because I believe
that the citizens of those territories are out of sight and out of mind
of this place. They have no representation here and limited access, and
it gives the Government and the Opposition a comfort zone, because they
can pretend that they do not know what is going on in the overseas
territories. They do not acknowledge their responsibilities to people
who are often, though not in every case, struggling in difficult
circumstances. I welcome the fact that we can at least detain
this Committee for a while to do what 600 other Members should do:
protect and promote the territories’ interests when there is no
representation.
The documents
set out the constitutional position in the overseas territories of the
Netherlands, France, the UK and Denmark. They do not mention, however,
that Greenland has a representative in the Danish Parliament, that a
little island off the north coast of America, St. Pierre,
has representation in the National Assembly of France, or that other
territories have such representation or access in the Netherlands. As
an aside, I note that the great United States extends to its overseas
territories delegate status in its Congress. But the UK does not afford
the people in our overseas territories any representation in, or access
to, this
place.
Mr.
Borrow: There is a wide variety of UK overseas
territories. Does my hon. Friend agree that while some of them are
financially strong, and are able to ensure that their voices are heard
in London, that is not financially viable for most of them, and that
their voices therefore go unheard? Does he agree that only a small
handful of the overseas territories are able to meet Members of this
House on a regular
basis?
Andrew
Mackinlay: Precisely—that is true. But people are
entitled to be represented on what is ultimately their legislature. I
invite the Committee to pause and think about what would happen if the
UK were to go to war. The overseas territories do not have the option
of saying, “If you don’t mind, dear mother England, or
Britain, we’ll sit this one out.” They have to go to war
as well. Our armed forces, defence policy and foreign policy are also
theirs, and they are entitled to have access here.
Taking up my
hon. Friend’s point, and bearing in mind the documents—I
do not know about you, Mr. Pope, but I had to read them a
couple of times to get my head around them—some of the
territories are so small that their capacity to marshal all the facts,
communicate with people, check things out and do research would be
somewhat limited. Although some of the big players, such as Bermuda and
the Cayman Islands, have resources, legislature and a Government that
can get on top of such issues, it would be much more difficult for the
small, but legitimate, legislatures to give due diligence to and take
cognisance of facts such as those before us today. That is the
failure.
The bundle of
documents reminds us that it is possible, under the European treaties,
to extend the European franchise to all those places, and that should
happen, because one does not have to be in the EU to do so. The
territories are outside it, under the treaty and the special protocols,
but they are entitled to vote, and we could extend to them the right to
vote in European elections. Hon. Members might remember that Gibraltar,
which is in Europe, was denied voting rights. When the Labour
Government came into office, I asked the then Secretary of State for
the Home Department, now the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he
would extend the franchise, but he said no, and it took a good lady to
take the British Government to court to establish those rights. The
documents seem to show that there is no such right for the overseas
territories, but it is within the capacity of this place to extend the
franchise to them, and we should do so. I hope that that will be
suggested to Europe when the UK responds to the documents.
I have other
concerns. I criticise the Government because they seem not to have
taken any note, in their documents and comments, of what the Select
Committee on Foreign Affairs has said about our environmental
obligations. The overseas territories are the custodians of, or have
within their bounty, some of the most fragile ecosystems in the world,
which are absolutely critical. Some are desperately conscious of this,
but do not have the resources to protect and enhance, and some probably
are neglectful. The thrust of evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee
was that we have an obligation. The UK cannot hide and pretend it does
not have an obligation to protect such fragile ecosystems and
micro-environments. We have an obligation to do that and this paper
does not acknowledge it. I read the paragraphs relating to the
environment and so on, but there was no acknowledgement of both our
ultimate legal obligations and our moral obligations. That is why I
suggest that there is a degree of abdication by us on this
matter. On
the British overseas territories, the paper said that there are no
citizens. Well, there are the people from the Chagos islands. No
citizens are there because, shamefully, they were evicted. Recently the
Foreign Affairs Committee suggested that the third generation should be
extended citizenship rights. Of course, if people get citizenship
rights, as these documents point out, they also get rights to European
Union citizenship. The Government have ignored that in their response.
I am ashamed that a Labour Government expelled such people. I look to
this Labour Government to right the wrong and acknowledge it. In
fairness to this Labour Government, a current or recent Minister said
that this matter is shameful, that we should not have done it, but that
we cannot put the clock back. However, at least we can help to heal the
wounds and right the
wrongs.
|
