Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, Ms Shan Morgan and Mr Anthony
Smith
19 DECEMBER 2006
Q1Chairman: Good morning. Thank you very much
indeed, Minister, for being with us today. It being the last day
of business before the recess, I know you had absolutely nothing
else to do!
Mr Hoon: I could not have imagined spending
it in a better way.
Q2Chairman: We are very happy you are here.
Could we also welcome Anthony Smith and Shan Morgan to the table.
As under our normal procedures: any time you want to invite them
to participate in this, they are most welcome to join in the conversation.
We gave you a list of questions which were written some time before
the Council met although we knew what was on the agenda. We have
of course had the advantage of either participating in or at least
reading the report on the short debates on the two statements
made in the Commons and the Lords yesterday afternoon and we also
have before us the Presidency Conclusions. I expect you would
like to make a statement, Minister, then we can go to questions.
Mr Hoon: I am perfectly happy simply to take
your questions. I would describe the results of the Council as
workmanlike. I think there are important practical decisions taken
on enlargement, both, specifically, in relation to Turkey as well
as the strategic impact of enlargement more generally. There is
also a series of very practical issues concerned with climate
change; energy; Africa; the globalisation agenda; justice and
home affairs and migration. I think it was a very practical, hardworking
Council that moved things forward in a number of areas in a very
effective way.
Q3 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. Perhaps I could begin on the question of enlargement.
As you know, this Committee recently produced a report on future
enlargement of the EU and the lessons learned from the past, but
let me focus for a moment on what happened in the GAERC and then
in the Council. We were getting the impression from what we were
reading and hearing that Her Majesty's Government felt there were
some Member States which were pushing for far too draconian sanctions—sanctions
not in the formal sense but "punishment" of Turkey—for
the failure to implement the Ankara Protocol and that the United
Kingdom felt that eight chapters was going too far. It seems that
you were able to join the consensus in the end, but I am wondering
what it was that made you feel you could live with those fairly
severe measures taken against Turkey, given the fact that they
were partly saying that they had been unfairly treated and also
that public opinion in Turkey was suffering as a result of this
kind of reaction from the Council. How did the United Kingdom
come to join in that consensus?
Mr Hoon: In the first place, everyone, including
the United Kingdom, was agreed that Turkey must live up to its
obligations not only under the Ankara Protocol but more widely
in relation to European law. That was the starting point of the
discussion. I agree with you that there was a range of views as
to what was the appropriate response of the European Union to
Turkey's failure so far to meet its Ankara Protocol obligations.
We judged that it was necessary to mark the fact that this had
not been achieved, but, at the same time, we did not want to do
that in a way that would have resulted in the negotiations being
suspended or coming to a halt. Given that there are 35 chapters
which have to be negotiated and those chapters are never negotiated
simultaneously, it seemed to us that, in effect, suspending progress
on eight chapters concerned with the implications of the Protocol,
leaving those on one side for now but allowing progress to be
made in the other 27 areas—progress that will have to be
made in any event for Turkey to join the European Union—was
not absolutely what we had initially argued for but, on the other
hand, was an appropriate compromise, bringing together those countries
which argued for much stronger penalties and including ours which
primarily argued for a slightly lighter emphasis. As a compromise,
we think this is a good result. It allows, crucially, the negotiations
to continue.
Q4 Chairman: It is absolutely clear,
is it not, Minister, with regard to those 27 chapters, that work
can continue on them and they can be closed eventually. Some countries
were saying they did not even want those chapters closed; they
wanted to continue with them and not close them. Of course there
is always the possibility of a veto from Cyprus on the closing
of a chapter, but as far as the rest of them are concerned, that
does go ahead and closure is possible.
Mr Hoon: Chapters are only ever provisionally
closed in the language of the European Union and it will be conditional
upon Turkey having implemented the Ankara Protocol. This process
does require Turkey, as it must in any event, to open its ports/open
its airports to traffic from all EU Member States. That is and
remains a pre-condition. It is a pre-condition of closing each
of the 27 chapters—at least, provisionally. It is part of
an overall package that we believe is the right way forward, since
it does allow significant progress to be made in the 27 areas
but, equally, we will all be looking to Turkey to implement its
EU obligations.
Q5 Lord Wright of Richmond: Minister,
do you detect among our partners growing concern that Turkish
resentment at the way negotiations are going will dampen enthusiasm
for accession?
Mr Hoon: Clearly opinion polls in Turkey have
shown falling support for membership, although, still, at the
last poll I saw it was some 53 per cent, so there is still a clear
majority. I suspect there are some domestic political issues in
other countries, but all countries have signed up to negotiations
with Turkey, therefore they have accepted in principle that Turkey
should become a member of the European Union. That, again, was
the case as a result of the conclusions of the European Council.
No one is formally saying, "We are so unhappy with this process
that we are backing off previous agreements".
Q6 Chairman: Could I move on to the
Western Balkans and to Croatia. We do understand that there is
a general consensus that Croatia should be allowed to proceed
on the path towards the future of the negotiations, but there
still remains open the question of whether or not, if the time
comes when they have successfully completed the negotiations but
the necessary institutional reforms within the EU have not been
put into place, they could be included in the accession Treaty
specifically for Croatia. The bottom line really is that we do
not want to see Croatia held hostage to a failure on the part
of the European Union to make the necessary institutional changes.
There should be plenty of time, given that we do not expect Croatia
to be ready before 2009-10.
Mr Hoon: An important aspect of the conclusion
to the European Council in more general terms on enlargement was
that it was accepted that each application would be treated on
its own merits. That must imply that the timetable for each application
should be treated on its own merits and the process should be
considered quite individually. There is little doubt that Croatia,
for example, is making steady progress on accession: two chapters
out of 35 have been provisionally completed, a further seven have
had opening benchmarks set, while six have been screened and found
to need no opening benchmarks. There is real progress there. Anyone
who has been to Croatia can see that progress on the ground. I
anticipate that they can move pretty steadily, fairly quickly
towards being in a position to become a Member of the European
Union. I would very strongly welcome that.
Q7 Chairman: As far as the rest of
the Western Balkans are concerned, as you say it is a matter of
taking each case individually and seeing what progress they make,
but are you satisfied that within the Council there is a true
understanding of the great importance of the Western Balkans eventually
finding their place in the European Union so that we have an area
of stability there?
Mr Hoon: Given that very many Member States
of the European Union have committed troops at various times to
different parts of the Western Balkans, I think there is a clear
understanding that a political solution to the problems of that
part of Europe is crucial. A political solution would one day
involve membership of the European Union. I am not putting a timetable
on that. Some of those countries have a very long way to go yet
to be the kind of functioning market economies governed by the
rule of law and democratic principles that we would require. Nevertheless,
the Council made clear that we see, in the long term, the future
of these countries as being part of the European Union, as being
part of the political solution that is necessary to resolve the
problems of what was a very troubled part of the world not so
very long ago.
Chairman: Thank you very much. I would like to come
on to energy, which will have featured quite heavily in the deliberations
of the Council.
Q8 Lord Marlesford: Minister, there
are 11 paragraphs in the Presidency Conclusions on energy and
the word "nuclear" is not mentioned at all. Given that
the Americans are very much back in the game with the US New Global
Energy Partnership which was adopted in February of this year,
and given that part of that is the international reliable fuel
services programme, of which it is intended both France and Britain
would be a part, and given that Westinghouse, which British Nuclear
Fuel sold earlier this year, has this week been given an $8 billion
contract by China to build four nuclear stations, are you satisfied
that Her Majesty's Government is taking a lead on persuading Europe
of the need for nuclear power as a means of plugging the energy
gap?
Mr Hoon: I accept that energy has become increasingly
important to the European Union in recent times and, crucially,
energy security. In the Conclusions there is reference to the
importance of ensuring a secure supply of energy across the European
Union, with some reference to third countries, including one in
particular, called Russia. As far as the European Union is concerned,
it is not usually the case that the EU prescribes to Member States
how they should meet their own energy needs and, thereby, the
wider aspect of EU energy supply. The only area where you could
say that, in a sense, the EU breaches that approach is in the
encouragement that it gives to new technologies, to renewable
energy, as a means of encouraging a degree of diversification
Generally speaking, the internal energy requirements of an individual
Member State are for an individual Member State, including, therefore,
nuclear. Where security is an issue across the EU, that is something
in which the EU properly takes an interest. Moreover, where we
want to encourage new sources of energy, like renewables, like
the new technology opportunities, then that again is something
that is referred to in the Conclusions. Overall, I do not think
there is any particular requirement at this present stage for
the EU to develop encouragement of, for example, nuclear power.
That is not something that I suspect the EU would regard as being
within its competence, certainly at the present time.
Q9 Lord Marlesford: Given that new
technology was a central part of the Lisbon agenda, I find it
hard you can say that, Minister. Here is probably the biggest
single real contribution—wind power and things like that
are political tokenism in comparison. Here is a real opportunity,
and Britain and Europe look like losing out again to America.
Mr Hoon: I do not accept that for a moment.
I am not quite sure what percentage of France's energy is generated
by nuclear. Eight-five per cent or something like that.
Q10 Lord Marlesford: It is 80 per
cent and we are 20 per cent.
Mr Hoon: Eighty per cent. The technology is
there and clearly has been successful as far as France is concerned,
which is why I say it is a matter for each Member State to determine
its precise mix. The overall picture of energy security for the
EU is increasingly important—and it is right that we should
concentrate on that. That is in no way suggesting that nuclear
is not important. The UK Government has acknowledged that in its
energy White Paper and it is something that we will want to take
forward, but I do not think the EU is prescribing to Member States
that nuclear is necessarily a part of the solution for each and
every country.
Q11 Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: Following
on from that, Minister, you spoke eloquently the other day—
Mr Hoon: Oh, dear!
Q12 Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: Well,
you were applauding Angela Merkel, who was speaking eloquently
about how the single market would only work if electricity flowed
freely and we accept the concept of European champions, not just
national champions, across the European Union for energy. I see
that the European Council talked of the need to realise "an
inter-connected, transparent and non-discriminatory internal energy
market, with harmonised rules" and next time around the European
Council will have a prioritised Action Plan to look at adopting.
What role do you think should be played in energy security and
the creation of this single market in energy by the application
of the competition rules and State aid rules by the Commission
and Court? Is that not the principal requirement, and is not the
principal difficulty the doctrine of national champions which
some are pursuing?
Mr Hoon: I strongly agree with the sentiment
underlying that question because I think it is very much in the
UK's national interest that the single market is completed in
a number of areas and this is probably the one where UK consumers
could benefit from having a much more effective system of delivering,
not least gas, on a European rather than a national basis. I think
that is consistent with the way in which energy as an issue has
gone from a middle-ranking place in the table of political issues
of importance for the European Union to somewhere close to the
leading spot, certainly as far as a number of countries are concerned.
We certainly want to see the completion of the internal market
and I think, therefore, it follows that the way in which the European
Commission policies that market is a logical consequence of that.
We have the right legislation in place in the United Kingdom.
We will want to see that approach emulated elsewhere in Europe.
Chairman: Could we move on now to migration policy.
As you know, Lord Wright chaired an inquiry into economic migration
quite recently and published an excellent report. He has a question
for you.
Q13 Lord Wright of Richmond: Minister,
I really wanted to pick up your reference to the UK's national
interest. Our report Economic Migration to the EU
concluded that it was in our national interest that we should
be as liberal as possible in allowing new entrants to the economic
Union to migrate freely. We took, I think, a rather distinguished
view in earlier accessions in allowing the new entrants to come
to this country when some of our partners were very much more
restrained about that. I know the Government has undertaken to
review this in a year's time. Is there anything you can tell us,
in the light of what, I hope, has been your reading of our report,
on how you expect the Government to handle this question in relation
to Romania and Bulgaria?
Mr Hoon: I broadly agree with the report. I
think it was an extremely useful commentary on what has happened
in the past, but we have always made clear that our judgments
will be made in the light of the impact on the labour market.
There were concerns, certainly at the lower-skill end of the spectrum,
that at the present time a complete opening to workers from Romania
and Bulgaria might not be appropriate, which is why we have the
restriction as far as the low-skilled are concerned—although
whether there are 19,000 people wanting to come from Romania and
Bulgaria, given the statistics in the past, remains to be seen.
Nevertheless, that is the limit that we are imposing. Equally,
we made clear that we would review this after one year. We could
have left it for two but we thought it right to indicate to Romania
and Bulgaria that we were prepared to consider this as soon as
we possibly could and we will look at the effect of the rules
and the effect again on the labour market at that time.
Lord Wright of Richmond: Thank you very much.
Q14 Lord Harrison: Minister, I would
very much like to ask you how satisfied the Government is with
progress on the Better Regulation Agenda and what you think might
be achieved in 2007, and, attached to that, about your comments
concerning the desirability of completing the single market. Would
you associate Commissioner Verheugan's comments that the failure
to do so costs all of Europe—€600 billion, I think
he concluded. Do you see there an echo of the Ceccheni report,
which talked about these issues 10-20 years ago and that Commissioner
Verheugan's comments are related to that single market being completed
and are not related, as some interpreters have said, to what is
commonly called "red tape emanating from Brussels"?
Mr Hoon: In the first place, we very much welcome
the Commission's ambitious target to reduce by 25 per cent the
administrative burdens by 2012. We believe that will make a significant
contribution to improving the competitiveness of EU business.
As I am sure the Committee are aware, Chancellor Merkel has highlighted
better regulation as a key component for the German Presidency
in the first half of next year. We will certainly work closely,
in the light of our own experience with better regulation in the
United Kingdom, to pass on whatever lessons we have learned and
hope that the Commission can realise that ambition. Over the years—and
I speak as someone who has spent some time in dealing with European
law—all legislation in all countries has got more complex,
and, unfortunately, 25 countries contributing amendments to basic
proposals outlined by the European Commission has necessarily
produced a degree of complexity. I suspect, if I were an academic
still, I would say, "Was it inconsistent with the way in
which, historically at any rate, the idea of a directive was framed?"
The idea of a directive was to leave it to Member States to implement
the principles. It seems that in recent years each and every possible
problem has sought to be anticipated, with ever more complicated
legislation as a result. So, in simplifying the legislation—if
I take the meaning of your question—a concern we must have,
certainly on behalf of the United Kingdom, is that we do not then
say somehow that this is a retreat from the principles of a single
market, because it is necessary to have regulation in order to
create that single market. The legislation should, if working
properly, replace 25 potentially inconsistent sets of regulation
that inhibit the operation of a single market by a single set
of regulation at the European level. That is not a reason for
that legislation being more complex, more onerous, more administratively
burdensome to business than is absolutely necessary, but I think
we do have to face up to the fact that it should be replacing
inconsistent national legislation, if it is working properly.
Q15 Chairman: How big a problem is
gold-plating in this country?
Mr Hoon: It is the same problem that I alluded
to. We in the United Kingdom have always rightly been concerned
about the quality of our legislation and that has led to greater
complexity. I think a simple look at the number of inches occupied
by Acts of Parliament in recent years, compared to, say, 10 years
ago or 20 years ago, will demonstrate that each Act of Parliament
is getting thicker as we try to anticipate all of the various
problems that a complex modern society generates. As a result,
sometimes, we probably are more ambitious than we should be in
trying to anticipate every conceivable possibility that could
arise in terms of the legislation transposing directives into
our national law. Perhaps I may put it this way: I do not think
that is just a problem of European legislation; I think it is
problem of legislation generally. Trying to find a simpler and
more straightforward way of passing laws that necessarily have
the desired impact is one of the challenges which Parliament as
a whole faces and not simply in relation to European proposals.
Chairman: Lord Bowness is a member of the Law and
Institutions Sub-Committee. Perhaps he would like to put a question
about institutional change.
Q16 Lord Bowness: Minister, the German
Presidency, we know, has been given the task of holding in-depth
discussions in 2007 with Member States, and submitting a report,
presumably, at the end of their Presidency. However, I do note
that the Presidency Conclusions of December say that the Finnish
Presidency "provided the European Council with an assessment
of its consultation with Member States regarding the Constitutional
Treaty". The Nice Treaty requires the size of the Commission
to be reduced once membership is 27 and that to take place when
the first new Commission comes into place (probably in 2009).
Did you glean anything from the Finnish assessment or, indeed,
from discussions as to what the Council's thinking is on Commission
reform? Indeed, what is the Government's position on Commission
reform? Presumably we have some ideas before we are asked by the
German Presidency in 2007. Perhaps by way of an aside, just for
clarification, would you be happy with a solution whereby the
UK at some times did not have a Commissioner?
Mr Hoon: The starting point is that the UK wants
the institutions of the European Union, including the European
Commission, to be efficient and effective. Whether having a Commission
of 27-minus (although it could well be 28-minus in due course)
achieves that objective is something clearly that we would want
to discuss. How we implement the Nice Treaty provision is also
something that requires further discussion, not least in the light
of indications—and I cannot put it any stronger than that—from
some Member States that they would be reluctant to give up their
Commissioner, so there is a great deal of debate still to be had
in this area. I would emphasise, though, for the sake of completeness,
that a number of smaller countries do see their Commissioner as
being a vital safeguard, so any future negotiation is not something
that I think is going to be necessarily straightforward to resolve.
I know there was some discussions at the Council and perhaps I
will ask Shan to explain what they were.
Ms Morgan: We understand there was a short oral
debrief of heads, over dinner only, by the Finnish Presidency.
They gave no particular detail, nor did they set out any proposals
on a way forward. They had been unable to pull together any real
consensus, so these were effectively only interim consultations
and the in-depth consultations will start under the German Presidency.
Q17 Chairman: That is the impression,
that the smaller States are particularly anxious that they should
be allocated a Commissioner in the college because they feel this
is one way a small State can get its voice heard. Are we not drifting
away from the principle that Commissioners are not there to represent
their countries, they are there to do a job? Was there any support
for, or was it even raised, the proposal by Nicolas Sarkozy, a
rather bizarre one, that the Commission President should be able
to select his or own Commissioners?
Mr Hoon: Whatever other merits there might be
in his proposals, that was one aspect that I can say quite clearly
will not find favour with the British Government.
Chairman: That is clear enough. I am sure that has
been heard by Nicolas Sarkozy. Does anybody else have any questions
on institutional reform?
Q18 Lord Blackwell: Minister, the
declaration contains the words that "the European Council
reaffirms the importance of commemorating the 50th anniversary
of the Treaty of Rome in order to confirm the values of the European
integration process." We know from press reports that a number
of European governments are proposing bringing forward something
close to the original Constitution and then having an IGC proposed
in 2007-08 to discuss that. Given that the Constitution was never
ratified in the UK, what is the UK Government's position on what
kind of new Constitution should be brought forward? How do you
deal with those proposals?
Mr Hoon: I do not want to quibble with the terms
of your question but the debate is essentially between those countries
which have ratified and those countries which are still to ratify.
Given that two of the original family members of what was then
the Common Market failed to carry a referendum on the Constitutional
Treaty, there is clearly a wide range of opinion that has to be
addressed before we can achieve the necessary consensus. I set
out some weeks ago the principles underlying the UK Government's
approach to these negotiations. One of the things I would emphasise
is that, although quite often in this country the politics of
the situation are seen from the perspective of a country that
has not yet ratified, there are important politics in those countries
which have. The position of those countries, like Spain for example,
which held a referendum, where the government have said to their
people, "We believe that this comprehensive package is the
best way forward", necessarily means that whatever solution
we achieve has to address both the politics of countries that
have ratified as well as those which have not. That is why this
is going to be difficult. No one can pretend that a way forward
is going to be easy or straightforward. We have been doing some
thinking about the appropriate way forward and at the right time
we will set that out to Parliament.
Q19 Lord Blackwell: Is it likely
there will be some significant package, as opposed to what was
previously thought about at the time of pause for reflection of
small progress on particular items?
Mr Hoon: There are views around. To be fair,
if we are going to balance one French presidential candidate's
views with another, there seems to be a slightly different view
emerging from the Parti Socialiste as to the best way forward
if Segole"ne Royal wins the French presidential election.
There are debates taking place in a number of countries, including
this one, about the best way forward and I think it is important
that we find a way forward but at the same time I cannot tell
you at this stage what it is going to be—or even what it
is going to look like.
Lord Blackwell: Thank you.
|
