Examination of Witnesses (Questions 580-599)
RT HON
DAVID MILIBAND,
MP, PAUL BERMAN,
SHAN MORGAN
AND MARTIN
SHEARMAN
12 DECEMBER 2007
Q580 Chairman: We will no doubt come
back to this at a later stage.
The High Representative has a specifically referred-to
role, now, within the United Nations Security Council. I know
that this was debated yesterday on the Floor of the House, but
can you clarify whether you expect that to have any influence
on the role of our Permanent Representative and our own role in
the UN Security Council?
David Miliband: Our Permanent
Representative is there to represent us, in the same way that
I am there to represent us when I am at the Security Council.
Q581 Chairman: So there will be no
change.
David Miliband: The European Union
has the right to speak at the moment. I have the figures in my
head from the German presidency: I think I am right that during
the six months it spoke eight times. It can speak, but it obviously
cannot vote, because votes are reserved for members of the Security
Council.
Chairman: Okay.
Q582 Mr Horam: Foreign Secretary,
can I ask you about the External Action Service that is going
to be set up? I think that you would agree that successive British
Governments have done rather a good job in getting British officials
into the Commission, particularly at the higher level. So now
we have a major opportunity, because this new service will be
set up and thousands of people will be involved, as I understand
it. Yet at the same time I understand that the FCO is running
down the European Fast Stream, which has been suspended and may
be abandoned altogether. Does that not put us at a serious disadvantage?
Why are we doing that now?
David Miliband: You are right
to say that we have done better in the last 10 or 15 years at
getting our people into the higher positions, which probably reflects
earlier investment. In respect of the External Action Service,
it is important to say that it will be taking on staff who are
already working, because although the service is being created,
people working in the Commission offices in 118 countries already
have the first call for the new service. However, I agree with
you that it is important that Britain gets proper representation.
First, I do not think that the run-down on the
European Fast Stream negates our potential to have influence in
the EAS, partly because there is much more scope now for people
entering the Commission mid-career, which is a significant difference
from the situation 20 or 30 years ago when you had to enter at
the beginning and work your way to the top. Secondly, the EAS
will be setting out to recruit people on secondment from the FCO
and, as long as people are assured that they will be able to come
back, that will be an attractive secondment.
The balance of FCO effort is moving away from
Europe, which had up to 35% or even 40% of staff until relatively
recently and is down to 30%
Q583 Mr Horam: Why are we running
down the Fast Stream? What is the reason?
David Miliband: The truth is that
we were struggling to get people for it. I am happy to get some
management data on that. We were struggling to get people on to
the Fast Steam track and we have been trying to do more in respect
of secondment and the mid-career entry point. I am happy to get
you stuff on that.
Q584 Andrew Mackinlay: It is about
their having confidence that they can return to the mainstream
FCO.
David Miliband: But the point
is that we need to exploit the opportunities for secondment that
are created by the new EAS and we are determined to do that.
Q585 Chairman: You have just published
a new, revised strategy. You have got rid of the 10 priorities
and are moving towards a more focused approach. I have just had
a letter about that. In that process there will perhaps be a reduction
of commitment in certain parts of the world. If that is the case,
will we be relying more and more on the European Union's delegations,
or European Union representation? I will give you a particular
example. Two weeks ago, I met a delegation of Members of Parliament
from Gabon, where we do not even have an Honorary Consul. I wonder
whether, as the EU's External Action Service is developed, the
British Government might start using the EU's base in particular
countries, rather than having our own, inadequate, representation—or
no representation at all?
David Miliband: No. I see the
two as complementary, not substitutive. I will look into the Gabon
situation, because there will be provision for British visitors.
We are bound to have some sort of representation in Gabon.
Chairman: We do not at the moment.
David Miliband: We will find out
about Gabon. The point is that more and more business within Europe
that used to be done bilaterally is now done through the European
Union, and that is the importance of UKREP, so there is no suggestion
of running down UKREP. Equally, we need to have representation
in all European countries: that will continue. However, the focus
of the FCO's staffing strategy is to put people into the priority
areas, often areas of danger—it is why we are having a big
upgrade in our Afghanistan effort, a big upgrade in our middle
east and north Africa effort—which is part of a shift from
the traditional focus of bilateral foreign policy in Europe to
some of the new areas of threat that we face.
Q586 Chairman: Can we have a note
on how you intend to tackle the staffing of the EAS from the UK
point of view?
David Miliband: Of course. I am
very happy to do that.
Chairman: Can we now move on? I have
been told that it is about quarter past four. Gisela Stuart, please,
on the Reflection Group.
Ms Stuart: Oh yes.
David Miliband: Fancy another
role?
Ms Stuart: No.
Chairman: That is why we got her to ask
the question.
Q587 Ms Stuart: I have already got
redemption from one life sentence, I think. As we know, the Reflection
Group is a group of wise men, suggested by President Sarkozy.
While I think it is quite appropriate to have a forum to look
at the way the European Union develops, I wonder what your view
is on what the mandate of that group should be, particularly given
that, in your opening statement, you said that one of the good
things that ought to come out of the Lisbon treaty is that for
the foreseeable future we put an end to institutional changes.
Given that the Reflection Group will look at, particularly, Turkey's
accession—this huge member state potentially coming in—will
that come into it, or how do you envisage that mandate?
David Miliband: It is very important
that the Reflection Group be about the long-term future of the
Union. It should start with the global context that it will face
in 2020 or 2030, the changing economic, demographic and possibly
political context, Europe's place in the world, wholly consistent
with the "global Europe" argument we have been making.
It should not be trying to substitute itself for short-term policy
making, and it certainly should be barred from getting into an
institutional reorganisation. This is about the global context
that Europe is going to face in 15 to 20 years' time. That is
the mandate: to think far ahead, and not to substitute itself
for the negotiations and discussion. I certainly do not see it
adjudicating on Turkey. In fact, the basis for many countries
agreeing to have this group at all is that it does not get into
the question of commitments already made to Turkish accession.
Q588 Ms Stuart: So you would exclude
discussions on Turkey?
David Miliband: I do not think
there will be a sub-clause in its mandate saying, "You're
not allowed to look at Turkey", but I think it will be absolutely
clear that this is about the global context of 2020 to 2030, and
not about institutional reform.
Q589 Ms Stuart: When would you expect
them to report? What do you think would be a sense of the time
frame?
David Miliband: Years, not months,
I think. Two or three years.
Q590 Chairman: You referred earlier
to the declaration on globalisation. Can you tell us what you
expect to come out of that?
David Miliband: I think it is
important to send a very clear signal about the new priorities
of the European Union, and I think it is fair to say that over
the last 40 or 50 years, the European Union has gained strength
from its focus on issues within its borders: social standards,
markets, currencies. However, in the modern world, that is only
one wing of the aeroplane. The other wing of the aeroplane is
what is going on beyond your borders. That is the new dimension
that is very important. It is about climate, energy, migration,
terrorism, crime—
Q591 Chairman: Peace?
David Miliband: Peace and stability,
and conflict prevention. Those are issues beyond our borders that
spill over into our borders if we are not careful. The globalisation
declaration therefore needs to set out very clearly that that
is the new focus of European action—the new balancing wing
of the aeroplane.
Q592 Chairman: Have you seen the
survey that the Bertelsmann Foundation has just published about
public attitudes towards Europe and the rest of the world?
David Miliband: I have not seen
it, no.
Q593 Chairman: It is quite interesting.
It really gives a sense that the public want the European Union
to deal with those kinds of issues and that they see the European
Union as playing an important role in those areas. I would be
interested to know whether this declaration has been driven by
surveys—is it just coincidental?
David Miliband: It sounds like
an extremely good survey—the sort of survey that we like.
It makes sense. The former Foreign Secretary talked about the
European Union not poking into every nook and cranny of local
life. It should be focusing on things which are genuinely international.
Chairman: Can we move on to the EU budget?
Q594 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Can I ask
about prospects for the budget? Efforts were made in the Convention
on the Future of Europe to reform the way that Europe finances
itself and spends its money because great damage is done by continuing
scandals over waste, mismanagement, fraud and so on. As it is
called a reform treaty, does it surprise you that no real efforts
were made to reform the treaty? Indeed, for the 13th year now,
the auditors have failed to sign off the account. Given that there
is to be a look at the budget next year, what are your ambitions
regarding the EU budget and, crucially, how it is spent?
David Miliband: The treaty was
not about the budget, it was about the institutions. The issue
of the auditing arrangements is therefore not something for the
treaty. But as you say, the budget is not being ignored and nor
is its management being ignored.
The important starting point for us is to make
sure first, that the budget focuses on things that Europe needs
to do. Secondly, that it does them in as efficient a way as possible.
Both of those things can be done from relatively close to a zero
base. We should be starting from a simple proposition that the
European Union should be spending on things that it should be
doing; it should be doing it in an efficient and effective way.
Thirdly, we need to ask whether public spending is the right way
to achieve the policy goal described, presuming that we agree
that it is a policy goal that Europe should be pursuing. Could
that policy goal be achieved through regulatory or other means?
That is the right way to approach the European
budget. It is a fundamental budget review. It is to be launched
in the next year or so. Those are the right starting points: does
it add value; is it efficiently done; and is public spending—as
opposed to other action—the right way of achieving the goal?
We will also be arguing strongly that the European budget should
be contained.
Q595 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: You say
that the budget was not part of the treaty, but the budgetary
process—the means by which Europe obtains money and spends
it—is the subject of treaty articles. To that extent those
articles could have been amended or strengthened. Some of us in
the convention tabled amendments to strengthen the role of the
European Court of Auditors and so on. I am not sure you are quite
right in saying that nothing could have been done to reform that
aspect of the treaty.
Can I ask you about a specific? When the Prime
Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer he raised the possibility
of bringing back the structural funds so that the better-off members
could spend their own money on industrial and social policy rather
than having it filtered through the Brussels machine with all
the inefficiency and incompetence that that would entail. Now
he is Prime Minister, do you believe that is still his aim? Are
there any other opportunities for bringing certain elements of
the budget back under national control?
David Miliband: I would like perhaps
to write to you or have an evidence session at greater length
about the budget process. I am not going to use this occasion,
especially only a couple of months after the Commission first
issued its paper asking for views on that, to start setting out
our negotiation stall in great detail. I do not think that that
would be a wise thing to do. I would prefer to use the processes
that are under way in Government to respond to that Commission
publication and ensure that we do so in a way that maximises our
negotiating potential. We should follow that through and I am
sure that it will be for the Committee to examine it. There is
a whole range of issues where there are fundamental debates going
on about the purposes of the spending and how it is done, and
it is better for us to do that in a way that responds coherently
across the piece rather than just picking up individual items.
Chairman: Thank you. Richard Younger-Ross.
Q596 Richard Younger-Ross: Could
you give us some idea of what the Government view or policy would
be towards European common defence?
David Miliband: The European Security
and Defence Policy is obviously standing. We have three priorities
with regard to European security plans: first, capabilities; secondly,
co-ordination with other players, notably NATO; and thirdly, conflict
prevention and conflict response. We do not see institutional
change as the prerequisite, but we see a focus on capabilities,
co-ordination and conflict prevention as the priorities for discussion
and that is our approach.
Q597 Richard Younger-Ross: There
is an inconsistency in the document. The opening general provisions
of the amended treaty's chapter on Common Foreign and Security
Policy states: "The Union's competence in matters of
Common Foreign and Security Policy shall cover all areas of foreign
policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including
the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might
lead to a common defence." However, the text of the treaty's
ESDP section itself provides the same wording but states that
it "will lead to a common defence." There is a conflict
between "might lead", which is what you seem to be saying,
and the document, which says "will lead".
David Miliband: I am not sure
that there is the distinction that you draw. If you look at the
ESDP, you will see that it states that "the common security
and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a
common defence policy for the Union. This will lead to common
defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides."
It shall, in that case, recommend it to the member states. That
is in section 2, clause 2, article 28 A, so I am not sure that
there is the contradiction that you described.
Q598 Richard Younger-Ross: It uses
the word "might" in one place and not in the other,
but if you go down, the ESDP provides for "permanent structured
cooperation between certain nations." Could you describe
what that would mean?
David Miliband: That is what we
discussed earlier in the session with Mike Gapes when we went
through permanent structured co-operation and it was about capabilities.
We addressed that earlier when we were talking about solidarity,
do you remember?
Q599 Richard Younger-Ross: Just coming
back to the issue of "will" or "might", if
there is permanent structured co-operation, that implies that
there will be a common defence.
David Miliband: No, permanent
structured co-operation is about groups of countries coming together
to address capabilities issues.
| 
