Foreign Affairs Committee Contents


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-199)

RT HON. DAVID MILIBAND MP AND MATTHEW RYCROFT CMG

17 JUNE 2009

  Q180 Ms Stuart: It might be quite helpful for the Committee to have some of the political things which we may welcome which can be whether or not you need the treaty basis.

  David Miliband: We can look at that.

  Q181 Ms Stuart: Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what the British Government's position would be if we get to October and the Lisbon Treaty is still in limbo? We have to make Commission appointments. We have to make a number of MEPs. We are into a period of extraordinary uncertainty. There must be some preparations on what the Government's position would be.

  David Miliband: We are making preparations for what happens if Lisbon goes through and we are making provisions for what happens if Lisbon does not go through. The third way is where there is some kind of tie in the Irish referendum or a hanging chads limbo. I am pretty sure that we have not made any preparations for a hanging chads situation in the Irish referendum. So either it will come into force or it won't come into force. I don't think there is a third way on this one.

  Ms Stuart: What a shame.

  Q182 Mr. Pope: We live under Nice but prepare for Lisbon. Those two treaties provide for different numbers of members of the European Parliament. Transitional arrangements were agreed at the last European Council. Spain appears to have reservations about that. If the Lisbon Treaty is ratified later this year, what happens to the European Parliament? Will it go ahead and have an increased number of MEPs or will it require another intergovernmental conference?

  David Miliband: We agreed to that. I am not sure that Spain has reservations. I think it is rather enthusiastic about reforming the number of MEPs because it gets four more.

  Q183 Mr. Pope: I don't mean political reservations. I think it has legal reservations as to whether it will be binding. It has put forward two alternatives: one for an IGC or one for an amendment to an accession protocol for Iceland or Croatia. Will that be discussed at the European Council and do we have a view?

  Matthew Rycroft: It was discussed at the December European Council which agreed that if we were in this scenario, in other words if the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, then the Spanish wish to have this increase in the number of MEPs before waiting for the next European Parliament elections in 2014 could come in. For that to take effect we obviously need to wait for the Lisbon Treaty to come into force. But it would require an IGC.

  Q184 Mr. Pope: It would require an IGC. What is the British view on whether this is desirable? Some member states think that it would be desirable for these to be the full extra 18 MEPs. Some think that they should just have observer status.

  David Miliband: Either they are in or they are out—I don't think you can have half an MEP.

  Q185 Mr. Pope: That is admirably clear. I have one other question. Of these 18 extra MEPs, one will be from the UK. In which region?

  David Miliband: The great thing about the very malleable British constitution is that it provides a bolt hole for Governments faced with this question. We have an Electoral Commission whose happy task it would be to try to decide where this MEP should come from and also how he or she should be elected/selected. I have heard of by-election campaigns that stir the blood but I am not sure that this is one that will be of massive excitement. There are some difficult babbling brooks that need to be crossed before we get an answer to that question.

  Chairman: Perhaps consideration can be given towards somebody to represent the Overseas Territories, given that Gibraltar is represented by the south-west of England at the moment.

  Q186 Sir Menzies Campbell: While we on the question of appointments, and leaving aside any domestic considerations, part of the uncertainty plays into the question of the selection of the next Chairman of the Commission.

  David Miliband: President.

  Sir Menzies Campbell: I beg your pardon—President of the Commission. Is that something that you will talk about this weekend? If so, how do you think it will be resolved?

  David Miliband: We talked about that yesterday in the debate on the European Council in the House. It will be discussed. The UK position is to support the renomination of Mr. Barroso. Obviously his presidency would not have a second term formally until it was ratified by the European Parliament, because those are the rules of the game. We think that it makes sense to proceed with his nomination. He has provided strong leadership for the Commission. We have very clear ideas about the sort of agenda that needs to be pursued, and it must be pursued decisively. His experience of his first five years could provide that. I hope it would mean that in this period of relative uncertainty before the Irish decision on the Lisbon Treaty is made—

  Q187 Sir Menzies Campbell: Are the French in agreement with that position? Do they not have a more nuanced position about wanting a formal interim appointment?

  David Miliband: As always in the European machinery, there is more than one way to skin this cat. There are different political decisions, formal decisions and legal decisions. There is a bit of to-ing and fro-ing, but it is clear what our position is and it is clear where the centre of gravity in Europe is.

  Q188 Sir Menzies Campbell: And you anticipate that the British position will prevail?

  David Miliband: I always say to people who raise the idea that we are one against 26 and that the British decision will power its way through, that we are important players, but we are not on our own. We are part of a strong consensus on how the European Union should go forward.

  Q189 Sir Menzies Campbell: I will put the question slightly differently: do you anticipate that the position that the British support will prevail?

  David Miliband: I think so. I anticipate that by the end of this week there will be a renomination of Mr. Barroso.

  Q190 Sir Menzies Campbell: What about Javier Solana's position as High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy? I think that his appointment comes to an end on 18 October 2009. Will that be subject to some discussion?

  David Miliband: That depends on the Lisbon Treaty.

  Q191 Sir Menzies Campbell: Because the whole of that office would have additional responsibility and he would be double-hatted.

  David Miliband: Exactly. As the high representative, he would combine certain roles. One of the joys and benefits of the Lisbon Treaty is that it will tackle the problem that Gisela Stuart identified accurately in yesterday's debate, which is that the dual representation of European institutions—partly Council, partly Commission—around the world does not make any sense. She spoke eloquently about how the Lisbon Treaty will overcome that problem. That obviously speaks directly to the role of high representative. It is up to Javier Solana to decide whether he wants to apply for it.

  Q192 Sir Menzies Campbell: Do you expect any discussion about European security and defence policy?

  Chairman: It looks as though we have a Division, which was totally unpredictable. We will have to stop to go and vote. If there is just one Division, we will be back in 15 minutes.

  Chairman: Foreign Secretary, apologies for the interruption. I believe that you were in the middle of concluding an answer to a question.

  David Miliband: Menzies Campbell asked me about security and defence policy. We will have the most direct discussion tomorrow night over dinner when we have a preview discussion about the OSCE meeting, which is taking place 10 days later, on so-called European security architecture.

  Q193 Sir Menzies Campbell: It's at the instigation of the Russians, among others, isn't it?

  David Miliband: Among others, yes. We will talk about how the institutions of European security have served us, and how the balance has been struck between so-called hard and soft security and the three baskets of the European security architecture—economic, social and humanitarian, and defence. That is the context in which it will come up. There is also an EU-Pakistan summit happening today, and there are some issues in respect of Afghan security where there may be some discussion. However, we will not be having a formal review of the operation in the Gulf of Aden and various other ESDP missions.

  Q194 Sir Menzies Campbell: May I make just one last point on the OSCE? There is some suggestion that the Russian motive in this is to try to slacken the connection between North America, Canada and the United States, with European security. I take it that this is something our Government would resist in the strongest possible way.

  David Miliband: Yes, there is a slight, "You might expect us to say that, wouldn't you?", but what is very striking is that President Sarkozy, in his first response to the Medvedev demand or suggestion of a debate about European security, said, "It is fine to have a debate, but be under absolutely no illusions that one foundation of that debate is unity across the Atlantic, and a second foundation is that hard and soft security fit together." The way I see it is that the Medvedev speech, which had these five principles of security, raises more questions than it answers, notably in respect of the Russian attitude to the so-called "near abroad", and secondly of the Russian attitude towards its own passport holders elsewhere in the world. It is very important that we never say that we are not willing to have a debate. Instead, we say, "Let us have a serious debate."

  Sir Menzies Campbell: Thank you.

  Q195 Sandra Osborne: May I ask you about the results of the European Parliament elections? Quite apart from our party's showing, there was only a 34% turnout in the United Kingdom. The numbers persistently seem to go down and there is less engagement with the public. Why do you think that is and what can we do to improve that?

  David Miliband: It is a good and hard question to ask. The answer that I give is that the European Union has spent seven years talking about its own institutions—its own plumbing. Organisations that spend time talking about their plumbing are not ones likely to stir the blood of voters. As it happens, our turnout did not go down that much this time, but we have always had a historically low level of turnout. I know that it is not something to be particularly proud of. I think that turnout did fall in a number of other European countries. When I was in Greece two weeks ago, I asked them whether the European elections would be fought on European issues and they said no. They had a fall in turnout as well. The European Union's problem is that when it does things well, there is no reason for people to talk about it—for example, what it does on mobile phone charges or on the European rule of law mission in Kosovo. When it does things badly, it rightly gets coverage. Most importantly, when it focuses on itself, it does not engage people, and that is what has happened with the constitution and then the reform treaty. That would be my explanation of why we have not driven up interest.

  Q196 Sandra Osborne: What about the election of the two BNP MEPs for the UK? What engagement, if any, will the Government have with them?

  David Miliband: I said yesterday in the House that we would provide the very basic service that goes to all MEPs from Britain. They get a written brief on what the Government's position is, but they won't get anything more than that. Many people in Britain of all political views feel a sense of shame and disgrace about the fact that far-right extremists have now been added from Britain to the far-right parties that have been elected from other European countries before. I think that I am right in saying that the BNP vote didn't actually go up, but the lower turnout from our party contributed to the BNP getting elected. It is demeaning for this country, which has been in the vanguard of the fight against racism and fascism for a very long time, to have two BNP MEPs. I think that it is a sobering warning to the rest of us about how we conduct our politics and how we engage with our voters. There is no such thing as the friendly face of fascism. We have to make sure that we learn the right lessons, and I am sure that is something the whole Committee agrees with.

  Q197 Sandra Osborne: What about the structure of the results overall, with the shift to the right and the rise of nationalism generally? How will that affect the UK Government's engagement with the European Parliament, if at all?

  David Miliband: Fortunately, from our point of view, given our party political leanings, the rise in the number of European People's party MEPs is compensated for, or annulled, by the bizarre/insane/delirious decision of our political opponents to leave the EPP and go off on their own into a sect of—what did Ken Clarke call them?—hare-brained nutters.

  Sir Menzies Campbell: Don't be so objective.

  David Miliband: That means that the EPP has no more seats than it had two weeks ago, not because its parties didn't win more seats, but because the British Conservatives chose to opt out of the EPP group. I think that points to a more fragmented European Parliament, and a European Parliament in which it will be harder to get majorities. It will also be a Parliament in which British influence is reduced, because the new sect will not have the speaking rights, the chairmanships or the positions as spokesmen that would be associated with being members of the EPP. But I think that overall, there is a big challenge to the European Parliament to make sure that it does not just become fragmented and factional.

  Chairman: Before we move on to international issues outside the immediate context, David Heathcoat-Amory wants to come back on another point.

  Q198 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I want to raise the question of financial regulation, because there are some big decisions coming up in the European Council on that. As you know, the City is very worried about the current transfer of authority for regulation from domestic to EU level. Your memorandum to the Committee states: "It is important for the UK that supervision should remain a national responsibility". I think that we all agree on that. Lord Myners, the Treasury Minister, has expanded on that publicly, and in a letter to the European Scrutiny Committee he emphasised that very explicitly.

  It is rather alarming to read in the draft conclusion that there is to be a new system of financial supervisors and three new European supervisory authorities working as an operational European network. It explicitly states that "their duties will include supervision at the level of the individual financial firm". It seems that, even before the Council has met, we have run up the white flag on that and are agreeing to a supervisory level, which contradicts both what you have said to us in your memorandum and what Lord Myners has said in a letter to another Committee.

  David Miliband: I don't think so, actually. That shows the perils of being guided by draft conclusions published on Danish websites. If you look at the meeting of Finance Minsters on 9 June, which did come up with public conclusions, you will see that they were absolutely clear that supervision and the arrangements for fiscal support to individual financial institutions in times of crisis must remain aligned. In other words, national fiscal responsibility and national institutional issues must be properly aligned, avoiding the sort of confusion that I think you fear.

  You were at the debate yesterday, and we went through in some detail the fact that there are two different sets of issues, which might have been confused at the beginning of your question. One of them relates to financial supervision, and the other relates to hedge funds and other regulatory issues, which will be discussed over a much longer term, rather than at the meeting tomorrow. With regard to the meeting tomorrow, I point you to the 9 June ECOFIN language, which I think provides a good guide to the centre of gravity in the EU on that issue.

  Q199 Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: You can assure us that paragraph 8 will therefore come out of the final conclusion—I think that you have given us that assurance. Also, reference to micro-prudential supervision must therefore come out of paragraph 7; but again, Lord Myners and the Treasury do not want the establishment of rules or supervision at the micro level to be done by the EU. Can I get you to assure us explicitly that the draft conclusions will not be followed through in practice?

  David Miliband: The most important word in "draft conclusions" is "draft". I would take the word "conclusions" with a large pinch of salt. What I can assure you is that first, as the meeting of Finance Ministers on 9 June made clear, arrangements for fiscal support to individual financial institutions must remain aligned with supervisory arrangements—hence the FSA.



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 1 September 2009