Caroline
Flint: I attempted to address that earlier and I think
that I was clear. There is a difference of view between the ESC and the
Government and Cabinet Office guidance on what is eligible to be
deposited. The European scrutiny strategy review was delivered to the
General Affairs and External Relations Council on 8 December
and endorsed by the European Council on 12 December. The review is a
non-binding, non-legislative document and cannot be classed as an
inter-institutional document, as it was delivered to the Council by
Mr. Solana.
The
declarations of the European Council are political tools and are not
legally binding. Therefore, they are not mentioned in the scrutiny
reserve resolution, or in Government guidance. As indicated in my
letter of 18 February, the Government guidance acknowledges that some
documents are harder than others to obtain prior to agreement at the
Council. That was the case here and as soon as a final version of the
text, endorsed by the European Council, was available we deposited it
in Parliament. As I said in the evidence session on 4
February and explained earlier, we did not have a final version of the
text until it was adopted at the European Council on 12 December. I
have already stated that, in my view, those declarations are not
subject to the scrutiny reserve, yet we deposited the document with an
explanatory memorandum and are debating it today. We are working to
overcome the differences expressed in the evidence session on 4
February and we have written to the Chair of the ESC outlining how that
will be done. Clearly, where there is a difference of opinion over what
is liable to scrutiny, that is a particular point on which we might not
reach agreement.
Mr.
Francois: I hear what the Minister says, but for the
benefit of the Committee—I am sure Committee members know, but
it bears repeating—the ESC is an all-party Committee of the
House with a Labour, not Conservative, Chairman. It would appear that
on a number of recent occasions the Minister has ended up in dispute
with him. Given that she is always trying to argue that the EU should
have greater transparency, and be made more popular in Britain by being
more open and transparent, why is she being less than transparent about
these very important matters? She is undermining her own
argument.
Caroline
Flint: The record will show that, since becoming the
Minister for Europe, I have provided a great deal more information on a
whole number of areas to the
scrutiny committees. Since I inherited this post, there have been some
differences of opinion about what is appropriate, so we are engaging
with the ESC—both the Chair and I, and at an official
level—to see how we can improve the process. However, there are
some areas that are not subject to the same level of scrutiny. That is
not something new. Clearly, as the hon. Gentleman—is it right
hon. Gentleman
now?
Caroline
Flint: Not quite. As the hon. Gentleman has outlined,
there is no partisan point to be made here, as the Chair of the ESC is
a fellow Labour MP.
Jo
Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): I am delighted to
serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Illsley. I
am very happy that we are debating these important
documents. I
would like to bring the Minister to the actual substance of the
documents at hand, in particular pages 35 and 36, which are
the part on the presidency report on ESDP. Everybody is aware that
since those reports were made there have been very concerning
developments in the middle east. I note that the report talks about a
possible expansion of the EUPOL COPPS mandate, at the beginning of
2009, in respect of the Palestinian Authority. Is she in a position to
update the Committee on whether the EU’s evaluation of the
Palestinian Authority’s needs, in terms of the police mission,
has changed since the developments in Gaza at the beginning of 2009?
What can she tell us about potential changes in terms of the Rafah
crossing point? That is also mentioned on page 36 of the document, with
the EU pointing out that it is ready to redeploy there as soon as
conditions allow. Have there been any developments on that issue, in
the negotiations with Israel and
Egypt?
Caroline
Flint: I will start with the EU border monitoring mission
in Gaza. As colleagues are aware, following the crisis in Gaza, the EU
mission at Rafah was reinforced to prepare for reactivation. The
crossing has not yet been opened, so the mission continues to plan for
an immediate deployment should the political situation allow that. The
opening of the crossing is dependent on an agreement being reached
between Palestinian factions and between the Palestinian Authority and
the Government of Israel. It will also require agreement and
co-operation from the Government of Egypt.
Recent
events, including the breaching of the border on 23 January last year,
have highlighted how important the issue is. The programme has
facilitated the crossing of nearly 500,000 people since it was deployed
at the end of November 2005. We continue to work and to do what we can
to try to reopen the border, but it is a difficult situation. I will be
happy today to inform the hon. Lady of any further developments that I
am unaware of. I was present at a meeting of the General Affairs and
External Relations Council where the important matter was discussed
regarding what the EU could
contribute. The
head of the EU policing mission is Paul Kernaghan—a UK
representative who does a fantastic job. Over the past six months, the
mission has facilitated or co-ordinated projects totalling $55 million
and has
attracted the interest of new donors. It has commenced nearly 100 small
projects working in about half of all Palestinian civil police
stations. In 2009, the mission programme fund will continue to work on
infrastructure and training, amongst other projects. Over 1,500 police
have received training, including on public order, crime investigation
and anti-corruption matters. Police advisers have mentored the
Palestinian civil police at various different levels, which has
included making daily visits to districts and stations in the west
bank. In
terms of lessons, one key recent achievement has been the expansion of
the mission’s rule of law section that focuses on police-related
criminal justice issues. That was recognised as an area in which the
mission could do more. The section produced a detailed assessment of
the criminal justice system in January, and is now working on an action
plan that will be completed in the spring. It will be discussed with
local stakeholders as it develops. We are active in both areas, but in
terms of reopening the border situation is proving
difficult.
Mr.
Charles Clarke (Norwich, South) (Lab): Does my right hon.
Friend agree that on this enormous range of matters, which are crucial
to this country, it is important that all sections of opinion within
the House are heard in the Council of Europe? That is true in relation
to Ministers of all parties from other member states and in the
European Parliament. In that context, how does she assess the decision
of the main Opposition in this country to leave the European
People’s party and absent themselves from discussions on those
key matters that are of vital interest to the people of this
country?
Caroline
Flint: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We
hear the Opposition say how much they want to be more involved in these
discussions, but they place themselves on the relatively isolated
fringes of Europe through the alliances that they have chosen to make
recently. In 2009, we have more friends and allies in the European
Union than we inherited in 1997. Because of our
constructive—sometimes robust—approach, we have been able
to make positive headway in a number of areas. That is of benefit to us
because security and peace, whether in Europe or beyond Europe’s
borders, is fundamental to the security and safety of UK
citizens.
Mr.
James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): The right hon. Member
for Norwich, South has raised a valuable point. There are many in this
House who have an opinion and an interest in these matters before they
are decided. However, as it happens, these matters were already decided
before any section of opinion in the House had the opportunity to
express any view on them whatsoever.
I begin by
asking the Minister about the European security review conducted by
Mr. Solana. She talked about the final version being
available on 8 December. When did the Government receive any version of
that document?
Caroline
Flint: We have been influencing the review because it was
a refresh of an existing document. I have made it clear that in areas
such as climate change, energy security, and responsibility to protect
people, for example, we were influencing that agenda. We are pleased to
see that reflected in the final document.
I take issue
with the hon. Gentleman. There are opportunities in this House and
elsewhere for Members of Parliament to raise questions, through letters
to Ministers, Adjournment debates, Public Bill Committee debates,
scrutiny debates and parliamentary questions. Through any of those
mechanisms, Members are able to ask the Government where our thinking
is on a number of issues. Already in this job, I have endeavoured to
share with Members what Government thinking is in a variety of cases,
including how we are influencing these documents. I refer Members to my
letter of 18 February to the Chair of the European Scrutiny
Committee, in which I clearly outlined the timings. The ESS final
review was received and discussed by the Council of Ministers on 8
December and the final report—a review is not a report until
agreed by the Council—was published on 12 December as a
reference document for the presidency conclusions, along with annexes
covering a declaration on capabilities and a statement on international
security. Within the given parameters, I have tried to keep Parliament
engaged with and involved in this process, and I did inform the House
of Mr. Solana’s review in my pre-General Affairs and
External Relations Council written ministerial statement on 8
December.
The
Chairman: Before calling further hon. Members to ask
questions, we should move away from the difference of opinion on the
review between the European Scrutiny Committee and the Minister, and
from the Opposition’s decision to change their allegiance within
the European parliamentary bodies, and bring the questions back to the
content of the two
documents— [Interruption.] Does the hon.
Gentleman wish to ask a supplementary
question?
Mr.
Clappison: Oh yes. That is helpful guidance about the
content of the documents, Mr. Illsley. In the light of that,
I point out that the report states
that “Awareness
of the ESS among the general publics...is
low” and
that a conscious effort should be made to remedy that. What have the
British Government done to remedy that lack of awareness of the
security strategy and in particular this review of it, a copy of which
the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee specifically requested
before it was agreed on 8
December?
Caroline
Flint: This is a framework document that allows us to make
decisions. There has to be unanimity on all these matters; we have to
decide on each occasion whether we will participate. First and
foremost, the UK Government look at the benefits and the risk to the
civilian or military personnel that we might provide for the mission.
It has to be clear that there is a double-locking key for anything that
requires our engagement, but this review allows us to have a sense of
the areas in which the European Union’s ESDP could apply. To
that end, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should talk more
about the missions and how they contribute to our well-being and
safety. I would welcome better communication and resources with which
to communicate the worth and benefit of the missions, which have been
substantial. They contribute to security and safety; perhaps not as
directly as some people in this country might want, but very clear
pathways can be drawn to protecting people overseas, to ensuring peace
and ultimately
to what happens in this country. So, I welcome the hon.
Gentleman’s request to do more about promoting how positive the
civilian or military missions
are.
Mr.
Clappison: But my question was: “What have the
Government
done?”
Caroline
Flint: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we look at how
we can communicate, and at how our involvement in European security
defence policy is important for UK aims, and I am looking at what more
we should do. It is not for us necessarily to publicise the document;
the issue is why we are engaged in the document and what is important.
It is about the principle of engagement in these co-operative ventures,
which we have an absolute right to participate in or not. It is
important that when we agree to participate in one of these missions,
we do our utmost to explain why we are taking part, what is in the
UK’s interest, and, importantly, what is delivered. We should
discuss that more with the British
public.
Mr.
Francois: I shall take your hint, Mr. Illsley,
and refrain from responding during questions on our new group in the
European Parliament, but perhaps when we get to speeches I will get a
30-second right of reply.
Turning to
the issues raised by the documents, as the Minister knows, they refer
to the treaty of Lisbon and its effect on European security and defence
policy. I would like to ask her directly about article 28 of
the treaty, specifically, article 28C(7), which states:
“If a
member state is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the
other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and
assistance by all means in their power, in accordance with Article 51
of the UN Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of
the security and defence policy of certain member
states.” Is
that, in effect, a mutual defence guarantee, similar to article 5 of
the Washington treaty?
Caroline
Flint: I will provide the hon. Gentleman with more detail.
My understanding is that although that is in the document, we have an
absolute right to decide which missions we take part in. We have a
veto, and the treaty does not mean that something could happen in the
European Union and somehow or other, 27 member states would be obliged
to take part because of that wording. We have a lock-in to ensure that
we have an absolute right to veto in terms of our voluntary presence,
whether in a civilian or military mission.
Mr.
Francois: With respect, the Minister has not answered the
question. [Interruption.] Well, I do not think
that she has. I shall put it to her again: is it a mutual defence
guarantee? A number of EU countries regard it as one. She simply needs
to say yes or no. Which is it?
Caroline
Flint: What I have said is that, clearly, we have a right
to say what missions we take part in. Therefore, we would not
automatically be expected to go to the defence of another country in
the way that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. I am happy to come back
to that point with details about the article he refers to later in the
debate.
Mr.
Francois: Given that the treaty is integral to the
documents we are debating this afternoon, I am a little surprised at
the continuing vagueness of the Minister’s answer. This is a
really simple question: has the Minister read the elements of the
Lisbon treaty that relate to defence?
| 
