Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-33)
HE Mr António Santana Carlos and Mr Israel
Saraiva
17 JULY 2007
Q20 Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Ambassador,
the European Council has requested that the Council and the European
Parliament get together to progress the European Institute of
Technology but there is a conflict between the two institutions
in terms of the budget resources to be devoted to this project.
In our own report on the matter, we share the concerns which have
been expressed by the European Parliament as to the method of
funding this new initiative. How will the Portuguese Presidency
try to seek the necessary agreement between the two parties to
make progress?
HE Mr Santana Carlos: Thank you for your question.
The Portuguese Presidency will seek political agreement before
the end of 2007 on a draft framework of the European Parliament
and of the Council that creates the EIT, thus we intend to give
continuity to the work undertaken during the German Presidency.
We appreciate that there still are some uncertainties regarding
the budget for the EIT. We are expecting additional information
from the Commission on the financial envelope, however it should
be underlined that the two institutions are already agreed as
far as the overall amount of the budget is concerned. €308.7
million. We now have to find an understanding on which budgetary
line we are going to get this amount. We are aiming at having
EIT on the agenda of the Competitiveness Council on the 27 and
28 September. May I also add that I welcome the recommendations
put forward by this House in its report with evidence "Proposal
to Establish the EIT". In particular, those suggesting that
"EIT's strategy is to focus on technical developments which
are commercially viable as well as innovative".
Q21 Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Could
I pursue that a little further. There is a concern that although
it seems that the scale of introduction of the EIT is being reduced,
there is no change to the budgetary ambition, as it were, of the
project. The second thing is that that finance is supposed to
come from a reserve fund which is already heavily under pressure
from other demands and it was because of that that we were so
concerned about the funding. The funds are not really in the Budget,
they are in the reserve fund, which has other claims upon it.
It may be too much detail, and I would be happy to get an answer
which reflected that at a later stage. That was the real concern.
HE Mr Santana Carlos: I fully understand your
remarks. That is a matter that shall be discussed in Brussels
with the Commission and we will see what it is possible to do
during our Presidency and to find a balance and a good solution
that can meet, not your objections, but your difficulties with
this issue.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
We have just over half an hour left, so I will reluctantly be
forced to skip one or maybe two questions. I am going to pass
over a question which I was going to put to you about the Galileo
project, if I may. Perhaps later, when you write to us on any
other points, you could mention something about the financial
problems related to Galileo. I would like to go on, if I may,
to the question of the labour markets.
Q22 Lord Marlesford: Ambassador,
I expect you would agree that the biggest structural problem which
the EU has is to become more competitive in terms of its labour
costs; particularly this applies in France and Germany due to
the problems of the overheads attached to labour costs. The House
of Lords came to the conclusion that it would not be a good idea
to seek harmonisation on labour laws. Do you accept that conclusion?
Do you agree that each country will have to deal with its own
problem in its own way?
HE Mr Santana Carlos: Thank you, Lord Marlesford,
for your question. The balance between flexibility and security
in the labour market is very high on the Portuguese Presidency
agenda, therefore we are seeking to promote a comprehensive debate
on "flexicurity" which is a word, as you know, that
combines those two concepts. We must strive for the right balance
between flexibility and security, knowing that there is no one-size-fits-all
solution. We must indeed take into consideration each Member State's
situation in terms of socio-economic, cultural and institutional
background. This is an approach, I am sure, with which this House
would agree. While understanding there are differences among Member
States, we need to aim for an integrated approach, including labour
market policies, flexibility in work organisation, lifelong learning
and training, along with stronger social protection. All these
measures would contribute to strengthening productivity of the
European Union and of its Member States. I appreciate labour productivity
in the UK, despite all its overall economic success, remains a
concern to this House. My Lord Chairman, we therefore need enhanced
coordination between Member States in order to deepen economic
cohesion within the Union while ensuring added protection to our
citizens. Strengthening the social pillar of the Lisbon Strategy
is thus becoming an ever greater priority. We want to give it
some impetus during our Presidency. In this context, let me very
briefly also remind this House that 2007 marks the tenth anniversary
of the European Strategy for Employment. This framework provides
a major opportunity to assess progress achieved so far and to
launch a debate on the best ways to improve coordination of social
and employment policies. The Portuguese Presidency will organise
a conference: Employment in Europe: Perspectives and Priorities
on 9 October in Lisbon. We will seek a debate oriented towards
the future. Europe has to be much more than a mere open market
ruled by some few common policies. Europe must be a community
of values which could be seen by its citizens as essential in
their daily lives. Social responsibility is one of the foundations
of the European model. The way we deal with challenges such as
social inclusion and the fight against poverty influences the
perceptions our citizens have of the European Union and its institutions.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
I would like to go straight on now to the CAP Health Check and
Lord Sewel.
Q23 Lord Sewel: Your Excellency,
perhaps we could move on to look at the big spender, the Common
Agricultural Policy. In the autumn the Commission will announce
its proposals for how to deal with the Health Check. They will
then come through, I think, with legislative proposals in the
spring. What plans does the Presidency have to coordinate a Council
response to the Health Check? Do you anticipate your Presidency
engaging or starting a wider debate, a more comprehensive debate,
on the future direction of the Common Agricultural Policy itself,
debate beyond the rather narrow confines of the Health Check?
Finally, do you think there will be any progress under your Presidency
on the reform of the wine regime?
HE Mr Santana Carlos: Thank you for your question.
As you mentioned, the implementation of the CAP reform will be
assessed in the Commission document to be presented before the
end of the Portuguese Presidency. This will be an opportunity
to make a thorough assessment of its implementation but also to
consider its future after 2013. The debate on the future of CAP
has started during previous European Union presidencies. It will
be pursued at the informal Agriculture and Fisheries Council to
be held in Porto from 16 to 18 September, and, as soon as the
Commission paper is presented in November, the Portuguese Presidency
will put it into the discussion at the Agriculture and Fisheries
Council, possibly still in November. The Portuguese Presidency
looks forward to a constructive debate that might contribute to
establishing appropriate and positive guidelines for the future
of the CAP which clearly means for the period after 2013.
Q24 Lord Sewel: Would you like to
say anything about wine?
HE Mr Santana Carlos: I think that is quite
a new matter but, as you know, Portugal is a wine-producing country,
so we will look at that carefully of course.
Chairman: A very wise answer. Anyway,
you will shortly have the benefit of reading a report we are producing
here on the wine regime. I am not going to ask you, for the purposes
of time, about climate change. Let us just place on the record
the fact that we appreciate the Portuguese Presidency's commitment
to carry on preparations for the Bali Conference and also your
commitment to carry forward the dialogue with important players
such as the United States, Brazil, China and India. We appreciate
that. We will leave it at that, just on the record. Could I move
on then to the area of freedom, security and justice, Lord Bowness.
Q25 Lord Bowness: Thank you, my Lord
Chairman. Your Excellency, good morning. Could I ask you what
priority your Presidency is going to give to criminal justice
measures? There are a number of proposals around the Framework
Decision on Procedural Rights, the Initiative for a Framework
Decision on Suspended Sentences, a Framework Decision for the
European Supervision Order. They all take a great deal of time
and I wonder what priority you will be giving to this, particularly
perhaps in the sense that this Committee will have an interest.
Without pre-judging anything, I expect it to be approving a report
of an inquiry that has been carried out into the European Supervision
Order. Anything you could say about the timetable of that would
no doubt be very much appreciated.
HE Mr Santana Carlos: Thank you very much for
that question, Lord Bowness. The three subjects assume special
interest for the Portuguese Presidency constituting any of them
a component of safeguards and protection of basic rights. They
will be an important priority for Portugal. As you will be aware,
the Framework Decision on Procedural Rights is a sensitive piece
of legislation which raises difficulties for a number of Member
States. We will therefore have to carefully consider whether there
is scope to move forward on the proposal and await the outcome
of the appropriate consultations. With regard to the Framework
Decision on Suspended Sentences and the Framework Decision for
a European Supervision Order, we hope to make progress and will
be organising a seminar in Lisbon in September, 24 and 25 September,
as well discussing both proposals in the appropriate Council working
groups.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
Lord Wright.
Q26 Lord Wright of Richmond: Ambassador,
good morning. Thank you again for your hospitality last week.
I do not know whether you have read a report which this Committee
produced on the Prüm Treaty but one of our concerns in commenting
on Prüm was that it might delay and interrupt progress on
the Framework Decision on the protection of personal data, so
I am very glad to see that one of your priorities is that particular
attention will be paid to the Framework Decision on the protection
of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial
cooperation in criminal matters. Can you tell us something about
your expected progress on the Framework Decision and whether it
is likely to offer better protection than the Council of Europe
Convention which of course is already binding on Member States.
HE Mr Santana Carlos: Thank you, Lord Wright.
This Framework Decision that you mention is important in terms
of the European Union efforts to fight crime and terrorism with
the strict observance of key conditions in the area of data protection
in the view of the implementation of the principle of availability.
It is a very important file for the Portuguese Presidency and
we would like to make progress on it before the end of the year
as it was requested both by the Justice and Home Affairs Council
and by the European Council in June. The last Justice and Home
Affairs Council agreed that the Framework Decision would be based
on the Council of Europe's existing rules which provide for high
standards. There is in any case a need for a separate European
Union instrument since the data protection provisions presently
existing would not be sufficient in view of the implementation
of the principle of availability.
Q27 Lord Wright: This Committee has
also produced a report on Schengen Information System Mark II
in which we referred to the Portuguese proposal for what is known
as SIS-one4all. Is there anything you can tell us about that,
either now or subsequently in writing?
HE Mr Santana Carlos: I think, Lord Wright,
I could reply saying that there is a new scheme that will facilitate
the access to the Schengen Agreement for new Member States of
the Union. This is the main objective of the SIS-one4all. Of course,
our idea is, during the Presidency, to make that instrument available
as soon as possible.
Q28 Lord Wright of Richmond: Our
concern was that it might actually delay the introduction of the
Schengen Information System Mark II but I hope you can give us
reassurance on that.
HE Mr Santana Carlos: Yes. We are doing our
utmost to overcome some delays and we hope SIS One4All will be
accessible in the month of August.
Lord Wright of Richmond: Thank you very much.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Can we
now take a look at the European Union's role in the wider world.
There are a variety of issues here. Let us start off with Lord
Roper and a rather touchy subject.
Q29 Lord Roper: Your Excellency,
we are very much aware of the priority you are giving to relations
with Africa, a subject on which our Committee reported last year.
We will not expect you to comment on the choice of the European
Union's Special Representative to the African Union although we
of course here very much hope our colleague, Baroness Amos, will
be chosen. As far as the European Union-Africa Summit is concerned,
there is of course one member of the African Union whose attendance
would present some problems to the United Kingdom and I wonder
whether you feel that a formula will be found to deal with the
question of Zimbabwe to make the Summit tolerable to all Member
States of the Union?
HE Mr Santana Carlos: Thank you very much for
that question. We are very well aware about some difficulties
that are coming up regarding the convening of the second European
Union-Africa Summit. There are, as you might be aware, several
conclusions by the European Council which are in favour of that
meeting. The European Council in June reaffirmed that the second
European Union-Africa Summit, which will take place in Lisbon
in December 2007, will provide an important opportunity to enhance
the relationship between the European Union and Africa and to
build an ambitious and strategic new partnership. All Member States,
including Portugal and the UK, are in full agreement on the need
for a new phase in the European Union-Africa relationship. The
European and African partners have been focused on the substance
of the Joint Strategy which includes the major areas of common
concern: peace and security, governance and human rights, trade
and regional integration and key developing issues. An important
step was also the endorsement by the European and African Ministerial
Troika of the outline of the Joint Strategy. This is the work
that was initiated during the German Presidency and is going forward.
The finalisation of the Joint Strategy will continue during the
Portuguese Presidency. The objective is the presentation of draft
texts of the Joint Strategy and plan of action in the European
Union-African Troika Ministerial which will take place on 31 October
2007. Portugal looks forward to contributions from European Union
Member States to be presented in the Ad Hoc Group recently set
up which will: (i) give guidance to the European Troika in negotiating
the Joint Strategy, (ii) ensure overall policy coherence, (iii)
identify concrete deliverables and (iv) contribute to the preparations
of the EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon. The UK has been very active
in the process and has identified as priority areas for concrete
deliverables the following: peace and security, health and education,
environment and energy and migration. My Lord Chairman, last February
a written agreement was reached in COREPER as follows: "Member
States are committed to working towards a successful European
Union-Africa Summit with substantive outcomes to be held in Lisbon
during the second semester of 2007. Renewal of the Common Position—that
took place on 22 February—on the restrictive measures on
Zimbabwe should not be an obstacle to the holding of a successful
Summit." The European Union continues to be concerned with
the deteriorating human rights, political and economic situation
in Zimbabwe, and for that reason renewed the Common Position.
Recently the Council discussed developments in Zimbabwe and adopted
conclusions, in which it welcomed the mandate given to President
Mbeki by the Southern African Development Community—SADC—to
facilitate dialogue between the opposition and the government
of Zimbabwe. The Council also stated that it stands ready to support
the SADC initiative if called upon to do so. Portugal believes
the participation of Zimbabwe in the Summit should not be seen
as a concession but as an opportunity for a frank and open debate
between Europeans and Africans on questions regarding governance
and human rights which affect also other countries in Africa.
The Common Position establishes that Member States may grant exemptions
regarding the visa ban when travel is justified on the grounds
of attending meetings of international bodies or conducting political
dialogue which promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of
law in Zimbabwe. However, the Presidency believes there is the
need to find acceptable solutions which take into account the
perspective and sensitivities of all sides both European and African.
That is an issue that we are dealing with with the British authorities;
you might be assured of that. As the host country, Portugal is
of the opinion that no discrimination should be made in the invitations.
All African states, and of course European states, should be invited
and we are aiming at the highest level of representation. Here
I would like to state very clearly that the Portuguese Foreign
Minister recently has made it very clear in public before the
media that we are not happy with the possibility that Robert Mugabe
will attend the Lisbon Summit, so we are not in favour of that
possible situation. We would like to see through diplomatic channels
what we can do in order to have representations from all African
and European countries at the highest possible level with the
exception perhaps of Zimbabwe but that is not an easy issue to
settle. That is our position.
Q30 Lord Tomlinson: Can I just ask
you, Your Excellency, to recognise that using words like "diplomatic
channels" should not be an excuse for not getting a proper
understanding. The language of diplomacy is so often a language
which is devised to confuse understanding of situations and I
think if President Mugabe were to discuss in a frank and open
debate democracy, human rights and the rule of law—and I
quote your previous reply—it would be somewhat akin in the
days of the past to inviting King Herod to discuss a strategy
for child welfare. I do not expect you necessarily to respond
to it but perhaps as you are communicating back to your government
you could say that certainly one Member of this Committee will
be trying his damnedest to persuade his Prime Minister not to
attend were President Mugabe to attend. I do not necessarily expect
you to comment too much on that!
HE Mr Santana Carlos: I thank you, Lord Tomlinson,
for your frankness which I appreciate. Of course we know the position
in this country and your relationship with Zimbabwe and I understand
there are very good reasons for that. I would only add that we
shall bear in mind of course the position of the UK. You are our
oldest ally and the Portuguese authorities in Lisbon are very
well aware of the British position. The Portuguese Prime Minister
met last Monday with Prime Minister Gordon Brown and I can assure
you that was one of the issues that was discussed. I used the
word "diplomatic", that also provoked some reactions
in my own country, not only here. Just to say that of course both—and
this is an understatement—political and diplomatic efforts
are going on to try, if we can, to settle the situation. I would
like to make the point that our perception is that after seven
years, because the first European Union-Africa Summit took place
in the year 2000 in Cairo so now it is normal that it shall be
held in Europe, we didn't have a second Summit despite the fact
that all the Members of the Union have a very good dialogue with
the countries in the Continent. The European Union as a whole
shall also have that dialogue and you have the Commission that
can be very instrumental. We shall stick to our standards, so
that is why we are thinking about a Joint Strategy document which
will be adopted in Lisbon, defending positions that are essential
for both partners. That is why we are pushing for that Summit.
I think this is important otherwise today the problem is Zimbabwe
and tomorrow it will be some other country, because, as we all
know, the leader of Zimbabwe is not the only one bad example in
the Continent, there are many others. So if we do not move a little
bit forward, that would mean the European Union will be unable
in the future to have its dialogue with the Continent which is
very important for us at the highest level. So that is the reason
why we are going forward with the preparations for that Summit
and we are doing the utmost of course to make it a successful
meeting.
Q31 Chairman: Thank you very much,
Ambassador. I think I can probably speak on behalf of the Committee
in saying that Portugal has our sympathy in trying to reach a
good solution to this very difficult problem and we hope for the
best. I wanted to just raise the issue of President Sarkozy's
rather vaguely defined idea of a Mediterranean Union. Some commentators
and politicians have suggested this is in fact a ploy to provide
an alternative for Turkey so that they would feel they were in
a union if not in the European Union. I do not know what Portugal's
position is on this although I know you have a great interest
in the area. Can you give us an idea of what your reaction to
President Sarkozy's proposal is?
HE Mr Santana Carlos: Thank you, my Lord Chairman.
First of all, I would expand the ideas of our Presidency regarding
the Mediterranean area. I am afraid I have very little to say
about President Sarkozy's proposal because we do not know yet
its content.
Q32 Chairman: I am not sure he does
either!
HE Mr Santana Carlos: But anyway I would like
to say that the Mediterranean has always been a top priority of
the European Union and will remain so during this Presidency.
We are in favour of any initiative or proposal that envisages
the strengthening and deepening of bonds between the countries
within the Mediterranean basin. Nevertheless, we believe the best
process remains a dialogue of mutual understanding and co-operation
between the European Union and its Mediterranean partners. Using
the framework of the Barcelona Process and the New Neighbourhood
Policy, we aim to re-launch an in-depth policy debate with our
European Union partners and developing a fresh approach towards
the Mediterranean, in particular on issues of development and
migration. Portugal is also engaged in the Political and Security
Partnership with Mediterranean countries in order to develop and
deepen the dialogue on ESDP and security issues. So we have five
meetings at a ministerial level within the framework of the EuroMed
that will take place in Portugal in several cities, including
a meeting of our Ministers of Defence. Therefore we will pay attention
to this relationship between European and Mediterranean countries.
As far as coming back to the main point of your question, we have
to see with our French friends what is the content of the proposal
and if it fits within the ideas that all the Member countries
have for enhancing the dialogue with the southern basin of the
Mediterranean.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
Let us now combine two issues regarding trade. Lord Marlesford?
Q33 Lord Marlesford: Ambassador,
in view of the failures of the repeated attempts to get agreement
on the Doha Trade Round, should we now regard the Doha Round as
dead? Where does Europe go from here and are bilaterals, particularly
with the United States, basically a substitute for multilaterals?
HE Mr Santana Carlos: This is a combined question
and I will try first to reply on Doha. We hope that during our
Presidency as representing the Union we can take some initiatives
regarding the successful conclusion of the DDA negotiation. Despite
the fact it is for us a first priority of course in the context
of the trade policy there are some difficulties, such as sustaining
a multilateral approach to international trade, and I would like
to stress that the process is now in the hands of the 150 members
of the WTO. We carefully follow the progress of the negotiations
in Geneva and like until now during our Presidency we will want
the European Union to intervene as much as possible in the process.
The Commission shares this mood and we count on her to keep Member
States fully and firmly informed and to consult them in a transparent
manner whenever it is necessary. The negotiations in Geneva deserve
special attention. This is a process that we will move forward
but for the time being I think this is very much dependent on
the position of some key countries—and I would mention Brazil,
India, of course China and also Russia. We imagine two possible
scenarios that we can face in our Presidency. The first is that
the Director General, Pascal Lamy, may realise there is a consensual
basis, however small it might be but enough, for pushing the negotiating
process. So the proposal for a global agreement could be presented
after the summer break. That is a good scenario. The second one
will recognise that the divergences are too important and may
prevent negotiations from progressing, and so the impossibility
of moving forward will be evident and they might be postponed
for two or three years. We will, then, probably have to accept
that negotiations could only be revived then in 2009 after the
American elections. If the negotiation process collapses, over-dramatising
the situation will have to be avoided and we will do the utmost
to prevent a blame game. Finally, let me just say the parallel
path the European Union is making with reinforcing bilateral trade
negotiations with the most important regional partners should
not be seen as the abolition of a multilateral approach. The bilateral
approach can work as a building block process for the multilateral
one. So that is the situation and let us see what is going to
happen. Regarding the second question, on transatlantic relations,
Portugal will actively take forward the framework for advancing
Transatlantic Economic Integration between the European Union
and the US agreed in the Summit which took place last April. We
would like the Member States to get involved and join the discussions
through the Council's Transatlantic Working Group. So we expect
that at least at a more technical level the process will evolve
well. The Portuguese Presidency will carry on with initiatives
to enhance economic integration and strengthen the transatlantic
relations within the context of the presidency Trio. We firmly
believe that the Transatlantic Economic Council will be the strategic
core from where we can manage economic co-operation with the United
States, so we intend to make full use of this framework. Thank
you.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed, Ambassador,
for answering our questions fully and clearly, with one or two
matters still to be clarified which maybe in the course of time
you could write to us about. I do thank you and I thank Mr Saraiva
for being with us today. This has been very helpful. We will be
sending you the transcript which we shall publish as part of a
short report, and we thank you very much indeed for giving us
a full insight into how you are going to handle the Presidency
and in particular how you are going to handle the IGC. We wish
you well, we shall be following the Presidency with great interest
and we look forward at the end of the Presidency to being able
to say, "Well done, Portugal, you got us through that difficult
period with great skill and...", may I dare utter the word,
"...great diplomacy." Thank you very much.
|
