Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-32)
Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, Ms Shan Morgan and Mr Anthony
Smith
19 DECEMBER 2006
Q20 Chairman: Could we move on to
the Berlin Declaration? What is going to go into that declaration
seems to be a secret being guarded as strictly as the results
of voting for Oscar winners. It seems to be shrouded in secrecy,
except that every now and then our representative in Brussels
enlightens us with a few tit-bits of information, perhaps that
it has "now stretched from two four pages", it has been
"drafted by President Barroso", or others say "it
has been drafted by the President of the European Parliament".
We do not know. We would like to know two things, however: What
would the Government expect the declaration to cover? Is it going
to be an aspirational document or is it going to set out some
kind of route-map? Secondly, will there be any chance for the
national parliaments to make an input into this?
Mr Hoon: I do not think it is a secret, not
least because I do not think it has yet been drafted: something
cannot be kept secret which does not actually exist. I see some
former senior civil servants shaking their heads at that!
Q21 Lord Wright of Richmond: I do
not recognise your reply!
Mr Hoon: There are a number of principles that
we would expect to see. First of all, I think it is appropriate
that we should mark this historic event. It is right that it should
be in Berlin, partly because, in a sense, the original drafters
of the Treaty of Rome prepared the Treaty with the experience
of two World Wars in Western Europe, which undoubtedly influenced
the way in which they saw the development of the European Union,
and, equally, we should be marking not only the achievement of
the original founders of the Treaty but also the fact that the
EU has played a significant part in ensuring that former members
of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union are now demographic countries
observing the rule of law. The fact that the EU was there and
provided a focus, a direction in which those countries should
move, we should rightly record as an achievement, and therefore
Berlin is the right place for this declaration. It is important,
however, that the document should not be a shopping list of current
concerns. I do not think we want a long, detailed exposition of
all the immediate political priorities of the EU; I think we should
be looking for a statement of the EU's values, the principles
that underline its existence and, if you like, the longer-term
challenges that we face. I think it should be aspirational; it
should not be "what we want to achieve this year in the European
Union". I hope, therefore, that we avoid a shopping list
because I think that would be a mistake. I am sure that we would
very much welcome parliamentary contributions. If the expert draftsmen
around this table would be prepared to offer some words, I am
sure we would very much welcome any contributions which this Committee
or indeed Parliament as a whole will provide.
Q22 Chairman: Ideally, we would like,
before this declaration is committed to parchment and beautifully
illuminated, or whatever else they are going to do with it before
it is presented, that we should know what it is planned should
go into it and that maybe the Minister would care to come before
this Committee with a draft and ask for our comments on it. If
we do not know to what it is we are contributing, we may be simply
sending along paragraphs that will not necessarily command the
attention which our deliberations might command if you were first
to come and tell us what you wanted to put into it and we could
tell you whether we agreed with it.
Mr Hoon: All I can say in response to that is
that I would be very willing to do that, providing the timetable
of the process allows for us to meet and to provide that information.
I hope that is enough qualification.
Chairman: I think that is enough qualification. We
now come on, if we may briefly, to the question of the Working
Time Directive. It is not mentioned in the Council's Conclusions
but it is a matter of great interest to us.
Q23 Baroness Thomas of Walliswood:
Obviously we see that discussion of the revision of the Working
Time Directive is going ahead. It should come back in the spring
European Council, if I have read the matter correctly—or
perhaps before or after that. What is Her Majesty's Government
trying to do in terms of revising the Working Time Directive?
What are the allowances forming around these discussions? Is there
any indication of where Her Majesty's Government's views receive
support?
Mr Hoon: Our basic position is well known: on
the directive we want to retain the individual opt-out, but, equally,
we want to see a solution to the SiMAP/Jaeger court case
and that has really been our approach in the negotiation. There
has not been either a consensus or indeed a qualified majority
because some countries are equally determined that there should
not be an opt-out. Some countries appear to be more relaxed about
SiMAP/Jaeger than, if I may put it this way, we think they
should be. Trying to find a solution which achieves both of our
objectives has so far eluded us. We would very much like SIMAP/Jaeger
to be resolved. So far other countries have not given quite the
same priority to that as we would like.
Q24 Baroness Thomas of Walliswood:
When I said the spring conference, your expression, if I may put
it like that, suggested that it might continue for longer than
that.
Mr Hoon: I was simply reflecting on how long
it has taken so far. If my body language gave away a certain degree
of scepticism about the possibility of resolving this as soon
as that time scale, that is probably about right.
Chairman: Could we move on to terrorism and the Prüm
Convention?
Q25 Lord Wright of Richmond: Minister,
there has been some reference to German shopping lists. I imagine
that the Prüm Convention is fairly high on that shopping
list. I do not know to what extent the Germans have yet pressed
us on joining or signing up to Prüm, which I think has now
been ratified by three countries. Can you tell us anything about
our likely attitude to Prüm, particularly given our partial
. . . "opt-in and opt-out" is the wrong expression,
but our partial involvement in the Schengen information system?
Mr Hoon: I thought this question might arise.
Therefore I will read out what my brief says so that you are quite
clear as to the Government's position. "The Government is
seriously considering signing up to the Prüm Convention and
intends to enter into formal discussions with the existing signatories
in the near future." We are seriously considering signing
up.
Lord Wright of Richmond: Thank you very much. That
is very helpful.
Chairman: That was a very clear answer. Thank you
very much, Minister. I would like to move on to the question of
the financing of the European Union. Again, this did not appear
in the Council discussions. There are two people who would like
to put questions: Lord Cobbold, who is a Member of Sub-Committee
A which is in fact conducting an inquiry into the question of
Future Financing and Own Resources, and then Lord Kerr.
Q26 Lord Cobbold: Do you think that
a revenue system based on a share of GNI is the right way forward
and that it should supersede gradually, over time, the other three
traditional Own Resources methodologies?
Mr Hoon: We are hoping, out of the review, for
all of these questions to be considered, not only on the revenue
raising side but also on the expenditure side, so we do want this
to be a fundamental look at the way in which the EU's finances
work. That is certainly one of the issues which would have to
be looked at.
Q27 Lord Cobbold: Do you think the
share of GNI is a fair system?
Mr Hoon: If I commit myself to answering that
in the way that you frame the question, then I am indicating a
particular way forward—which I do not think is appropriate
at this stage. The review has not started; we are still thinking
about the shape of the review; we want it to be comprehensive
and fundamental. That will certainly be one of the issues that
we examine.
Q28 Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: I do
not think I need pursue this. It is clear that the Minister will
be taking a steer from the comprehensive fundamental report that
the Committee will be writing!
Mr Hoon: I look forward to reading it—sadly,
not over the Christmas vacation.
Q29 Chairman: I was at the Joint
Committee of the European Parliament and the national parliaments,
on Mr Lamassoure's working group and one thing which struck us
was that there had been quite a sea change amongst some national
parliaments who had been pressing for a European Union tax, and
there was absolutely no support for it whatsoever, as of the last
meeting. The Portuguese Presidency and their national parliament
is going to call a one item joint meeting of the European parliament
and the national parliaments on the question of Own Resources
during their Presidency. I know it is very difficult for you,
as you have indicated in your answer to Lord Cobbold, to pre-judge
the outcome of the eventual review, but one of the points that
we put forward at a previous meeting when we discussed this was
that there should be an independent panel of experts set up to
make an independent contribution to the review process, rather
along the lines of the Sapir report. It was greeted with some
enthusiasm at our meeting last May but seems to have now disappeared
off the radar screen. Do you have any knowledge of this and would
you support the idea of an independent body of experts making
a contribution to the review?
Mr Hoon: I can see no reason why such an independent
body would not be helpful. There will be an application consultation
paper on the review which in effect will start the process at
some stage next year. I can see some advantages in having some
independent input into that review process. I see no reason why
such an organisation should not be established.
Q30 Chairman: Could we go on to this
question of parliamentary scrutiny during co-decision? This is
a question of pure process but there are concerns that the Government
should eventually be in a position to propose enhanced arrangements
for the parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislation during co-decision.
We are wondering whether there is some progress on this.
Mr Hoon: There are two stages, it seems to me.
As Leader of the House I put forward some ideas for a rather more
comprehensive approach to parliamentary scrutiny. I am not sure
what has happened to those proposals since I left that position.
The more detailed point, though, is enhancing arrangements as
far as co-decision is concerned. I hope to be writing to the Committees
in the New Year formally seeking agreement to enhanced arrangements
so I hope that can be agreed fairly quickly.
Q31 Chairman: Thank you very much.
We have dealt with the Constitution already, so let us come to
the last question, which is on communicating Europe. We are a
little bit puzzled by the fact that your explanatory memorandum
coming from the Government reflects agreement amongst Member States
that there is "a need to reach beyond those sectors of the
public that are already well-informed when providing information
on EU issues" but then goes on to say that there are no financial
implications for the United Kingdom. Does that mean we can participate
in this valiant effort without committing any funds to it?
Mr Hoon: I think that was simply a response
to the report by the Austrian Presidency and Council Secretariat.
They summarised Member States' responses to a questionnaire on
information and communication activities during the reflection
period. Since the document itself does not set out any specific
proposals or specific activities, that was why we said there were
no policy or financial implications for the UK as a direct result
of the report. But obviously there are wider issues about communication
and engaging the UK public, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
have done a great deal of work in recent times, continuing to
develop a website and working with outside organisations on communications.
I have had regular meetings, for example, with the European Commission
Office here in London, the European Parliament Office here in
London, looking at ways in which we can discuss Europe more effectively.
Perhaps I could summarise the approach that I think we have reached:
it is that we should be talking much more today about the issues
and perhaps rather less about the institutions, in the sense that
we have touched upon a number of the questions today in this meeting.
We are talking about energy, climate change, help for developing
countries. None of those issues can properly be addressed today
without there being a central European component and therefore
I think it is important that we get across to people the way in
which Europe addresses the policy issues and not simply see Europe
in a box on its own. I made a visit, for example, to one of the
RSPB's reserves, not specifically because they get European funding
for some of their work but because they have more than one million
members and campaign very effectively on environmental questions.
If one million people are interested sufficiently to join the
RSPB and participate in those campaigns, and if Europe plays a
central part in promoting wildlife habitats, then surely that
is a way in which we can connect people and interest people in
European issues. But the issue must come first. People do not
join the RSPB because they are fascinated about the details of
European institutions; they join it because it is an effective
campaigning organisation wanting to protect our environment. That
is the message that we really have to get across: the issues come
first. We might have fascinating discussions about the institution
but that is not something that terribly excites people in terms
of the future issues.
Q32 Chairman: On that very positive
note, I think we can let you go, Minister.
Mr Hoon: I am very grateful, as ever.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed for coming,
and your colleagues too. We wish you all a happy Christmas and
a successful 2007 and look forward to seeing you after the next
Council meeting.
| 
