Mr.
Clappison: Does the Minister expect the External Service
to become part of the External Action Service if the treaty is
ratified?
Mr.
Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone) (Lab): In
his opening statement, my hon. Friend mentioned external contact with
the “stans”, but I did not hear any reference to
Kazakhstan. I ask about this because Kazakhstan takes gas from the
Caspian, which goes into the Russian pipelines and comes down into
Europe. I wonder what kind of contact there is with
Kazakhstan.
Chris
Bryant: The European Commission already has a presence,
through the External Service, in
Kazakhstan.
Mr.
Lidington: May I follow up on the question asked by the
hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston? In view of his answer to her,
can the Minister say categorically that there has been no planning, and
that none is taking place, within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
or, so far as he is aware, within the EC itself on how to merge the EC
delegations and the other external representations into an External
Action Service, as envisaged by
Lisbon?
Chris
Bryant: Insofar as I am aware, there is absolutely nothing
happening within the European Commission and the EC in respect of
looking at what might happen should the Lisbon treaty be ratified. It
is true that we have to consider all possible eventualities, and we are
doing so on an equal basis, not making any presumptions about what may
happen.
Ms
Stuart: This has been on the horizon for six or seven
years. If one went to Kabul, one would meet not only representatives of
the European Council, but representatives of the European Commission,
the special representative of just about 27 member states and the
special representatives for the Department for International
Development and for the Foreign Office. Is the Minister really saying
that absolutely no work is going on to streamline not only our own
external representation, but that of the European Union, given that we
have treaty provisions that are supposed to be achieving that and given
that we have talked about them for seven
years?
Chris
Bryant: Of course, we want to ensure that our own
resources are deployed most effectively on behalf of this country, so
as to redound to the British interest, but we also want to ensure that
the EC uses its resources effectively. One reason why we want to ensure
that the Lisbon treaty is adopted is because we believe that that would
provide much greater clarity and cost-effectiveness. It would also mean
that there would be a clear line of accountability, not least
democratic accountability. Consequently, I urge my hon. Friend to
change her mind on the Lisbon
treaty.
Jo
Swinson: May I make a plea for plain English? The
Minister’s predecessor seemed keen at various stages on having
plain English, particularly as the EU can often seem distant and remote
to ordinary people. It is important that we try to make it as
understandable as
possible. The
hon. Member for Hertsmere, who is a member of the European Scrutiny
Committee, pointed out in his introduction that the explanatory
memorandum, which is supposed to be a simplification, mentions
delegations being more effectively brigaded together. However, there is
not a full explanation of what “brigaded” means. Will the
Minister enlighten us in plain English about what that means in
practice?
Chris
Bryant: I think that the word “brigaded” is
good and is quite plain English. Essentially, one wants to be able to
ensure that there is a more rational co-ordination of our efforts, so
that we are not wasting financial and personnel resources on people
multiplying in jobs, which can mean that the left hand does not know
what the right hand is doing. That is what
“brigaded”
means.
Mr.
Lidington: Following our previous line of questioning, the
Scrutiny Committee said in paragraph 2.22 on page 5 of the
bundle of documents that if the EAS is to be set up it must be
established by a formal decision of the Council. Is the Minister aware
of a draft decision being circulated between Governments and member
states?
Chris
Bryant: I can confidently say that one is
not.
Mr.
Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab): I do not want to
rush the Minister, but when are we going to get a referendum on the
Lisbon
treaty?
Chris
Bryant: We shall not be getting a referendum on the Lisbon
treaty.
Ms
Stuart: May I press the Minister again to say whether I
understand him correctly? We have done absolutely no further work on
this modest proposal because the Lisbon treaty has not yet been
ratified. However, we are clear that when it is implemented it will
rationalise things, be more effective and be really quite wonderful. Is
that the
position?
Chris
Bryant: I think that my hon. Friend is making slightly
heavy weather of this, and I see from the smile that is curling across
her lips that she accepts that.
Chris
Bryant: I am sorry; I misinterpreted my hon.
Friend’s smile. At the moment, as she herself has pointed out,
there are myriad different representatives, organisations and
deputations, all representing different institutions of the European
Union and the member states. Not many people think that it is rational
for us to maintain that position for ever.
It seems
perfectly rational to say that instead of having two people in charge
of implementing the common foreign and security policy of the member
states, as unanimously agreed by the Council, we need only one. We
should have people working to that policy, as unanimously agreed. That
is not where we are at now, because the treaty does not allow for it.
If the Lisbon treaty comes into force, we will be able to move towards
the better situation that my hon. Friend
outlines.
Jo
Swinson: I asked whether accountability could be improved
under the current system. The Minister said that the Lisbon treaty
would make it better, but he offered no alternative. Picking up on what
was said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, improving
accountability is surely worth while whether or not the Lisbon treaty
comes into force. All too often, diplomacy happens behind closed doors,
not necessarily in the full transparency of democratic accountability
that we would like. That happens even in the UK, but it is more
sensitive when the common foreign and security policy of 27 member
states is under discussion. If diplomats are in discussions and
negotiations, things can evolve, and there is a danger that agreed
policies can be reformed by diplomats. To stop that happening, we need
sound accountability structures. I am a little concerned that the
Minister has not pointed out any way of improving accountability other
than the Lisbon treaty. Will he enlighten us a little further on the
subject?
Chris
Bryant: The difficulty I have with this is that every
European nation that wants to proceed with the Lisbon treaty has
already recognised, almost by definition, that there is a problem with
a lack of consistency, coherence and brigading. That is the problem,
but we have identified a way to move forward and improve the situation,
something with which I know the hon. Lady agrees—namely, the
provisions of the treaty. For Britain, and for every other country,
they guarantee that common foreign and security policy will not be
developed on the basis of majority votes. Nobody will be forced into
foreign policies that they do not want to share, but it will give us
the opportunity to ensure
accountability. I
could speculate on hundreds of other ways in which we could do that,
but that seems a rather nugatory exercise when I am still hopeful that
the Lisbon treaty will be fully ratified and introduced. If that is the
case, further planning will have to be done to ensure that the
structures provided by the treaty can be matched by the personnel and
financial resources that would go into the
EAS.
Mr.
Lidington: The Scrutiny Committee was concerned about
whether the proposed changes might create a conflict of interest
between the Commission delegations and the network of EU special
representatives, who
already have a specific political role. The document also envisages that
political monitoring will be part of the role of EU delegations. Will
the Minister throw some light on the intended relationship between EU
delegations, on the one hand, and EU representatives in the same
country?
Chris
Bryant: We have the current situation, in which the
External Service sits alongside a variety of other forms of
representation, but for a more coherent and single approach, we would
prefer to be going towards a situation established under the Lisbon
treaty rather than the current Nice provisions. The treaty would not
tidy up every element of the provisions. That would need to be
addressed once the treaty has been, as we hope, ratified in all 27
countries.
Mr.
Lidington: Do we have a potential problem here? Two EU
entities—an official delegation on the one hand and a special
representative on the other—could each claim to be speaking for
the EU, but might be expressing different opinions when talking to the
leaders of the country or, indeed, when reporting back in
Brussels?
Chris
Bryant: It is certainly not inconceivable that, in due
course, with Union delegations under the Lisbon treaty, we might see a
reduction as the heads of Union delegations also take on the functions
of current organisations—the EU special representatives.
However, with detailed discussions on that not even started, it is
difficult to speculate
constructively.
Mr.
Lidington: I want to ask about one country in
particular—Togo. If the Minister does not have the response to
hand, perhaps he can deal with it when he replies to the debate. My
question is partly, I confess, because of my unfamiliarity with some of
the jargon. The EC is proposing to upgrade its regional delegation in
Togo to a full delegation. Will the Minister explain what is meant by
that terminology and why the European Community needs a full delegation
in Togo when, so far as I can see, our own Foreign and Commonwealth
Office is represented by an honorary
consul?
Chris
Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall reply
to him a little later on that
question. Motion
made, and Question
proposed, That
the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 5289/09,
Commission Communication on The Development and Consolidation of the
External Service: Implementation of Measures for 2008; and endorses the
Government’s policy of support for the developments to the
European Commission’s external service in 2009.—(Chris
Bryant.) 4.59
pm
Mr.
Lidington: It is a genuine pleasure to welcome the
Minister to his post. He has a long-standing interest in European
affairs, and although it is fair to say that his views and those of
myself and my party do not always coincide, there is no doubt that he
will approach his new responsibilities with genuine commitment and
interest. I am sure that no one will be able to write off the new
Minister—or anyone else—as window dressing.
In passing,
while I welcome the Minister to his role, I find myself almost struck
with disbelief by the cack-handed way in which the Government handled
the appointment of their new Minister for Europe. In the right hon.
Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), we had a Minister for Europe
who said openly in the Chamber of the House of Commons that she had not
read the Lisbon treaty. Now it appears that neither the Prime Minister
nor the First Secretary of State, despite his antecedence in the
Commission itself, had bothered to brief himself on a serving Member of
the European Parliament’s inability to serve in a national
legislature, let alone a national Government. It might help the
Committee if the Minister explains, because it is still far from clear,
whether Mrs. Kinnock—or Lady Kinnock—is
actually a Minister. I have seen her described in some cases as
Minister for Europe, and in some cases as an acting Minister. It would
be helpful to have
clarification—
The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to stray
a little from the terms of the
motion.
Mr.
Lidington: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr.
Betts. You bring me naturally to the next point that I proposed to
make. Many
of the questions posed to the Minister centred on what might happen to
these provisions were the Lisbon treaty to come into effect. I am
slightly disappointed that the Government have not felt able to share
more of their speculative thinking and contingency planning with the
Committee. I will certainly take on trust what the Minister says about
all options being considered equally, and I reassure the hon. Member
for Blyth Valley that the election of a Conservative Government would
ensure a
referendum.
Mr.
Campbell: I look forward to
that.
Mr.
Lidington: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do his
utmost to bring about that set of
events. I
am still concerned that we have not had answers to the questions posed
by the European Scrutiny Committee about what the implementation of the
Lisbon treaty would mean for the operation of the EU’s External
Service.
The
Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household (Mr. John
Spellar): I note the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to
referendums. Will he explain therefore why previous Conservative
Governments did not provide one? In fact, only a Labour Government have
given the country a referendum, when it voted to stay in the
EU.
Mr.
Lidington: My party is committed to a referendum on the
Lisbon treaty because we promised that to the British people at the
last general election. It is a pity that neither the right hon.
Gentleman’s party nor the Liberal Democrats have been
willing to stick by the equivalent promise that they each made in the
same
campaign. There
are a number of points on which it would be helpful to have greater
clarity from the Government about what the implementation of the Lisbon
treaty
would mean for EU external services. Let me raise three or four points
briefly. First, what would be the relationship of the External Action
Service to, on the one hand, the High Representative and, on the other
hand, the proposed President of the EU? That is important because if
the treaty envisages, as I believe it does, a more focused,
co-ordinated and important role for Union foreign policy, we need to
know which senior official will ultimately be responsible for the
direction of the External Action
Service. Secondly,
the High Representative, under the Lisbon treaty, would be a
Commissioner who would have collegiate responsibilities within the
Commission. Would that mean that the Commission collectively would
become responsible—in whole or in part—for the activities
of the External Action Service? Thirdly, I return to the question of
the EU special
representatives.
| 
