Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
10 JANUARY 2007
Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, Mr Anthony Smith and Mr David
Quarrey
Q1 Chairman:Minister, thank you very much
indeed for coming to see us this morning. As you will see, looking
around the table, a number of us are new Members to this Committee,
although you will also see some familiar faces from here and elsewhere.
Those of us who have come to Sub-Committee C after having seen
scrutiny of other parts of the European affairs have found that
the process dealing with the CFSP and the ESDP is complicated
by the fact that things move very quickly and therefore we sometimes
get documents rather late. We understand the problems about this
and we have written to you and Lord Grenfell has written to you
about a number of them. We did publish a very useful report on
the review of scrutiny about a year ago and I was wondering whether
there are occasions where, even if there is not already a formal
EU document, you would be able to give us some sort of indication
of something so that we would at least be able to begin to think
about it and then move relatively quickly when the document appeared.
Mr Hoon: My Lord, I will certainly do that.
Could I take a moment before that, however, simply to offer my
condolences following the recent passing of Lord Cockfield. I
would like to say something about him because obviously he was
a distinguished parliamentarian and minister but he was also,
in my personal experience, a very successful European Commissioner.
He began as a European Commissioner in 1985. At that time, as
Members of the Committee will be aware, I was a member of the
European Parliaments Legal Committee dealing with many aspects
of the single market proposals for which he was personally responsible.
It is fair to say that, without his determination on many aspects,
the single market would not be in the shape that it is in today.
It required considerable intellectual and political skill to drive
forward that programme. He did so with great success. He did so
in a way and with a style that perhaps would be unrecognisable
to modern political processors, and that, I think was part of
his success. I would not want his passing to be unrecorded. As
someone who was on the receiving end of his proposals in the European
Parliament Committee, I hope the Committee will not mind me making
those observations.
Chairman: Minster, thank you very much
for saying it. Those of us who did know him—not as well
as you did—much appreciated his remarkable range of contributions
to British public life and in particular his service on the Commission.
Q2 Lord Crickhowell: Could I say,
as a former Cabinet colleague, that I very much appreciate what
has just been said. I can endorse that the somewhat unusual style
in which he sometimes dealt with business, both in Cabinet and
later in Europe, was very effective.
Mr Hoon: I would certainly agree with that.
As far as the late receipt of documents is concerned, certainly
two of those which the Committee have highlighted to me—and
I have to be diplomatic here—were the result of the Finnish
Presidency, if I may put it in this way, being more successful
than was anticipated, so that, when the agenda for the Council
was being determined rather late in the Presidency, they discovered
that there was perhaps not quite as much material for debate and
discussion as they had previously anticipated, with the result
that there was a certain amount of—what is the right way
of putting it diplomatically—"clearing out" of
documents. I appreciate the fair way in which you, Chairman, have
made the point but all I can say is that you were not the only
ones who were surprised by how quickly some of these documents
moved. I think it is fair to say that we also had to deal with
these at rather short notice. Obviously I apologise that more
information and more time was not given to the Committee, but,
unfortunately, we were in exactly the same position.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
Could we now move to our questions. Lady Symons.
Q3 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Minister,
the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he regards the
Middle East Peace Process as his real foreign policy target in
terms of how he wants to concentrate efforts between now and whatever
time he chooses to leave Number 10, so can we look in quite a
focused way on how you see the role of the European Union, as
the Union, and the way in which it is aiming to effect influence
in what is happening in relation to the Middle East Peace Process.
There is a certain amount of scepticism about just how much notice
is taken of the EU, as the EU, as opposed to individual Member
States putting in their views on what is happening. Those of us
who have dealt with the Middle East and listened perhaps to what
our friends in Israel say about the role of the EU have probably
some reason to be a bit sceptical about how seriously the EU role
is taken. Can you tell us what, in your view, is the role of the
EU, how you see that role developing, and whether you believe
that is an effective instrument for developing policy in relation
to the Middle East Peace Process which is more effective than
the contributions Member States make as individual States who
are able to have bilateral relationships?
Mr Hoon: I think that is a fair summary of recent
history but perhaps not entirely fair on the current position.
Clearly, as a member of the Quartet, the EU plays a key role in
the international community's efforts to achieve peace. It plays
a key role economically: it is the largest international donor
to the Palestinians and obviously a key trading partner as well
with Israel and the Palestinians. The historic criticism is probably
justified, that the EU has not always been seen to play its part
as neutrally and as independently as some of the participants,
at any rate, would like. I think there has been a very determined
effort in recent times to redress that perceived imbalance. Javier
Solana, representing the European Union, has made a very determined
effort to demonstrate even-handedness. My view is that the EU
is the key institution as far as European countries are concerned
but that we have to use every opportunity that is available, bilaterally
involving Member States with some experience and some influence,
as well as groups of countries—as we saw very recently with
the Spanish, French, Italian initiative. I think we have to look
to find ways to try to get the process back on track and, in particular,
mentioning the Prime Minister's visit on 17 and 18 December, to
build Palestinian capacity—because, as Members of the Committee
will be well aware, the key problem at present is the lack of
a negotiating partner. Trying to find ways in which we can ensure
on the Palestinian side that they have the ability and the capacity
not only to negotiate but to deliver an effective result seems
to be the critical step that we have to take. I think the EU can
have an important role in that but it is important to recognise
as well that that is part of a series of complementary steps that
we have to coordinate as the EU, but recognising that individual
Member States and groups of Member States will also have a part
to play. David is our expert on these matters.
Mr Quarrey: I would like to say that there was
discussion at the PSC yesterday, looking forward to what the EU
should be doing on the Middle East Peace Process this year, and
it reflected that balance, as the Minister has set out, between
trying to move forward on the political process and particularly
trying to make the Quartet a more effective vehicle and the EU
more effective within that vehicle, and, on the other hand, developing
practical support to the Palestinian Authority, particularly to
the office of the President, where we can support it. There is
recognition, particularly on the Israeli side, that the EU's role
has evolved and that it is becoming, perhaps, in Israeli terms,
more even-handed.
Q4 Lord Lea of Crondall: We are going
to be doing this inquiry and the narrow definition of the Middle
East Peace Process is clearly Israel policy. Would you comment
on the fact that there is, however, every time you look at it,
"noises off"? There is Israel, Iran, Hezbollah and so
on. Would you comment on how you see the viability of the narrow
definition or the "normal" definition, you might say,
of the Middle East Process and everything else that is going on.
Mr Hoon: Trying to turn that on its head to
some extent, one of the points the Prime Minister has rightly
consistently made is that the key to many aspects of the difficulties
we have in the wider region and, indeed, in the Muslim world,
is the crucial position of the narrow Middle East Peace Process:
the sense of trying to find a solution to creating a Palestinian
State. That clearly influences Muslim opinion around the world.
It has been taken up more enthusiastically recently in the Arab
world. Certainly in my experience of dealing with these issues
as recently as 5 or 6 years ago, perhaps part of the Arab world
were not quite as keen on the issue as they appear to be today.
Equally, I think the wider context has also become more significant.
In the Arab world I think there is growing concern about the role
and the influence of Iran and the way in which Iran is playing
a part, sometimes through subsidiaries, in the narrow Middle East
Peace Process itself. Clearly there is a wider focus but nevertheless
the Prime Minister, I believe rightly, and the Government identifies
the narrow definition of finding a way to create a Palestinian
State as being a vitally important step to take in improving relations
with the Muslim world and with the Arab world.
Q5 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: It
was an articulated policy that the European Union would, if you
like, leave sufficient space for the Americans to take the strain
over the Middle East Peace Process. I certainly remember that
back in 1997/1998. We seem to have now started to see that rebalancing
going on, but the rebalancing, in many people's eyes, has been
much more with a humanitarian focus: the EU stepping in, as you
rightly say, to provide Palestinian infrastructure, money, and
indeed budgetary support on a month-by-month basis. Do you really
believe that the European Union has a political impact? I think
we will all acknowledge that there is a very important humanitarian
role and that has its own political placing but, when it comes
down to the nitty-gritty of who is listened to, do you think that
Javier Solana is able to command the ear not only of the Palestinians
but also of the Israelis with the same sort of authority as, for
example, the American Secretary of State? It is that political
punch that we remain to be convinced about as far as the European
Union is concerned and very particularly with the Israelis.
Mr Hoon: If the Committee will forgive me, I
do not intend to assess the level of influence. There is little
doubt that any US administration is always going to be a key player
in this process. It is important to continue to engage the United
States in this process but I do believe that the EU has an important
role to play not only economically and in providing humanitarian
and development and financial assistance but politically as well,
because that complementary process which I described earlier allows
those with important relationships in the region. France has significant
and different relationships in parts of the region than the United
Kingdom. We have a particular history in that part of the world;
other countries have expertise that they can bring to bear. It
is important that the international community, through the Quartet,
works together in bringing that influence to bear. I state the
obvious: this is not going to be solved easily, therefore, if
those kinds of relationships, however they are brought to bear,
are brought to bear in a coherent and constructive way, it may
prove successful.
Q6 Lord Crickhowell: Minister, you
just referred to the humanitarian and economic contribution. You
also referred to the growing Arab interest and the limitations
on the political role. Surely the potential Gulf and Arab involvement
in the economic and humanitarian role is much greater than it
has been in the past. It would be a real contribution, would it
not, if Europe could encourage and get more cooperation? Do you
see a way forward to get more involvement of the Arab world in
the whole process?
Mr Hoon: I was really referring to my own experience
in the region over a number of years, where I did not always find
that the leadership of some Arab countries quite shared the passion
for the issue that perhaps was expressed in the newspapers and,
indeed, on what is known as "the street". I think perhaps
there has been a growing realisation amongst the leadership of
a number of countries that this is an issue that they have to
take seriously and take an interest in. Therefore, getting them
engaged in both the humanitarian and development and financial
side is one thing but it is also important that they need to be
engaged as well on the political side. That means not simply standing
on the sidelines providing a running commentary but engaging in
practical steps for bringing about negotiations and finding a
way forward that will allow the Middle East Peace Process to be
resumed. I think the Arab world does have a significant role in
that.
Q7 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Minister,
the EU is the largest international donor. Do you believe we have
sufficient credit for that in terms of public diplomacy in the
Arab world?
Mr Hoon: I am probably not best placed to answer
that question. I think there is a determination in the EU to ensure,
as we have demonstrated, that, despite the election of a government
that is not prepared to respect the Quartet's principles, we have
found mechanisms for continuing to channel funding to the Palestinian
people.
Q8 Lord Anderson of Swansea: That
was not the question, with respect.
Mr Hoon: No. I am getting there. I apologise
if I am being longwinded. I was about to add that, if those mechanisms
had not been found, I think there would have been a serious outcry
in the Arab world that we were simply abandoning our commitment
to the Palestinian people. Finding those mechanisms demonstrated
the EU's determination and commitment to the Palestinian people.
Perhaps we should get more recognition for that in a wider sense
but it is something that we will continue to do.
Q9 Lord Anderson of Swansea: You
will recall that there was considerable criticism in the past
that the EU aid was not adequately transparent. That did, in effect,
condone the substantial degree of corruption in the Palestinian
Authority which, happily, Hamas has brought to light for its own
purposes. Is it your view that when—and hopefully as soon
as possible, when the conditions are met—direct assistance
to the Palestinian Authority is resumed, the lessons will have
been learned, and that there are procedures now in place in the
European Union to make that aid more transparent and to avoid
the corruption of the past?
Mr Hoon: I think that is a very fair observation.
Obviously the mechanisms that have been used have been seeking
to demonstrate direct financial assistance to the health and welfare
of the Palestinian people. I hope that has been done without corruption.
Q10 Lord Anderson of Swansea: It
manifestly has not.
Mr Hoon: Currently. The way in which the funding
has been channelled has been rather different and therefore I
hope has avoided the kinds of problems of the past. I do not know
whether you would like to add to that, David.
Mr Quarrey: It is worth recording that EU direct
budgetary support was suspended before the election which brought
Hamas to power, precisely because of concerns about how the FATAH-run
Palestinian Authority was spending the money at the time. I think
those concerns are well understood. I think there is a very strong
mood in the EU that future assistance which is likely to be on
a very substantial scale must be spent on a more productive, long-term
and transparent basis than before.
Q11 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Has
that been translated into new procedures?
Mr Quarrey: Through the temporary international
mechanisms there are accountability mechanisms which we will want
to apply to future funding, when it is resumed, directly to the
Palestinian Authority. But it is a difficult situation at the
moment, when we do not know when and at what volume we will be
funding the Authority.
Q12 Lord Chidgey: Minister, we have
more or less covered the ground on the Middle East Peace Process
but there are a couple of issues I would like to raise with you,
if I may. There have been a number of reports, well substantiated,
from a number of countries in the Middle East region, which have
traditionally been quite close to Britain in its European policies
within the region and as far as the EU is concerned as well, reports
that the leadership role that we were able to play as a country
within the EU and individually and with many of the Gulf countries
and Middle Eastern countries has been, I have to say, severely
damaged by the involvement in the Iraq War, and the credibility
and the expertise that we were seen to have, and the wisdom perhaps,
has been undermined, somewhat, by recent events. I would just
like to ask you your own view of the Government's view—as
a matter of fact, if you wish, or not—and what steps you
feel that the Government within the EU can take to try to re-establish
our principal role that we have traditionally played in that region,
working with the EU, as a leader in the EU, in policy development
in that region.
Mr Hoon: I simply do not accept the premise
of the point. I do not believe it has affected our ability to
take a leading role. I think the Prime Minister has demonstrated
that his voice is heard very strongly throughout the Arab world.
Indeed, having followed him to one particular place, people were
full of praise for his taking an initiative and being prepared
to devote the time that was referred to earlier to try to move
things forward. I do not believe that has been the case. I might
also mention, incidentally, that many of those same countries
were privately encouraging action against Iraq over a long period
of time.
Q13 Lord Chidgey: The caravan does
move on, Minister; one appreciates that. As a supplementary to
that point: we obviously had some difficulties with our colleagues
in the EU at the outbreak of the conflict.
Mr Hoon: Some of them. There is a myth, if you
will forgive me for saying so, that somehow or other we were isolated
in Europe. A significant majority of EU Member States supported
the position taken by the British Government.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom: France
and Germany are two of the biggest, are they not?
Q14 Lord Chidgey: Perhaps I could
just finish my question—I have obviously started a discussion
here. I hear what the Minister said, nevertheless there was some
disagreement and there was some difference of interests and there
were some difficulties in our relations with some of our important
EU counterparts. The question I really wanted to ask is: Now that
time has moved on, are those difficulties behind us? Can you say
with confidence, Minister, on behalf of this Government, that
in the EU we have restored our position of influence successfully
with those countries with which we had these disagreements? If
not, what are you doing about it?
Mr Hoon: We have a very strong relationship
with both Germany and France, if those are the two countries which
you refer to. I do not doubt that we have considerable influence
as far as those countries and, indeed, other EU countries are
concerned, so I do not have any difficulties with that. If the
criticism at the time which I have heard was that we lacked clear
direct support from the United Nations, then of course there is
an absolutely specific United Nations' resolution that governs
the operation of international forces in Iraq today. Those countries
that set great store by the United Nations should not be in any
difficulty in both deploying their forces and using their administration
to support the rebuilding or reconstruction of Iraq.
Q15 Lord Tomlinson: Minister, I would
like to go back to the question of the financing of what I would
call the flanking measures of the Peace Process. I always have
stuck in my mind the figure of 53 cents in the dollar coming from
the European Union. With the reluctance to give support to the
Palestinian Authority following the elections and the engagement
of Hamas in the process of government—which has obviously
diminished the contribution—and with the renewed enthusiasm
of the Arab world for engaging—one would hope engaging financially
in the processes that are necessary—has this global figure
of about 53 per cent changed?
Mr Hoon: Neither of us recognises the figure
at the moment. I do not think there is any argument that the EU
is the largest international funder; I will have to check the
precise percentage. Could I make the point as far as the Palestinian
Authority is concerned that there is no reluctance to support
the Palestinian Authority providing those who are responsible
for that accept the principles of the Quartet. It is vitally important
that in taking this process forward we have a partner who is prepared
to acknowledge the existence of the State of Israel and prepared
to recognise that there is a peaceful solution to this problem.
Until we have a partner who is prepared to do that, it is rather
difficult to make much ground.
Q16 Lord Tomlinson: Roughly speaking,
are the Arab States putting their money where their mouth is?
Mr Quarrey: There are some indications of increased
Arab funding. There is not a huge amount of money getting through
at the moment. I think some of the important Arab States are very
keen, as we are, to support President Abbas and his office but
I do not think that Arab money has flowed in in very substantial
quantities. In 2006, it is worth remembering, the EU gave more
money to the Palestinians than it has done in any other year—not
directly to the Palestinian Authority, but we put in about 680
million euros—so there was more money going from the EU
to the Palestinians than ever before. I suspect, in fact, that
the EU's share of total funding to the Palestinians probably increased
last year rather than decreased.
Chairman: We will be coming back to the
question of the Middle East in our main inquiry, and, in view
of time, perhaps we could move on to the next topic.
Q17 Lord Anderson of Swansea: We
have seen an article by Charles Grant (December 12, in the Financial
Times) in which he argued that the European Neighbourhood
Policy was insufficiently flexible, insufficiently ready to differentiate
between the better performing countries and those who are not,
and that there should be incentives, such as, for example, bringing
countries into discussions where matters directly relevant to
them were on the table. (For example, on Black Sea policy, that
Georgia should be brought in for discussions and that this would
(1) provide an incentive and (2) add to the quality and discussion
in the Council.) Is this a matter which has been considered by
the Government? Would we broadly support or not this suggestion
that there should be rewards for the better performing countries
by such matters as Charles Grant suggests?
Mr Hoon: Without dwelling too much on my own
personal history, I have known Charles since I first went to the
European Parliament in 1984. He has always been a distinguished
and stimulating commentator on European affairs. That is not to
say that I have always agreed with him. As far as a European Neighbourhood
Policy is concerned, we want it to be effective. We want it to
continue to promote secure, prosperous, stable democracies on
the EU's borders. Finding new ways of doing that is something
we will continue to look at. I did see that article. I thought
it was typical of Charles's lively thinking on the question and
it is something that I know we will take very seriously.
Q18 Lord Anderson of Swansea: What
does "we will take seriously" mean?
Mr Hoon: It means that the neighbourhood policy
is continuing to evolve and develop. Those kinds of ideas, if
they can be incorporated in a future conception of the policy,
are something we will look at.
Q19 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Are
we disposed to press that?
Mr Hoon: I am certainly prepared to think about
it.
|
