Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
10 JANUARY 2007
Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, Mr Anthony Smith and Mr David
Quarrey
Q20 Lord Tomlinson: As the European
Union's neighbours are the Member States of the Council of Europe,
are the Government proposing to take the Council of Europe more
seriously in future?
Mr Hoon: We always take the Council of Europe
seriously.
Q21 Lord Tomlinson: That is why it
is constantly under budgetary constraint.
Mr Hoon: I do not think that is strictly fair.
We have offered the Council of Europe an increase in its funding
consistent with the current rate of inflation.
Q22 Lord Tomlinson: But not with
the importance of the European Neighbourhood Policy.
Mr Hoon: I do not see the connection. The European
Neighbourhood Policy is an EU policy and it is something that
we continue to value and continue to develop.
Lord Tomlinson: Hence we go full circle.
The European Union's neighbourhood is the membership of the Council
of Europe.
Q23 Chairman: And the Mediterranean
countries.
Mr Hoon: I am not sure that is strictly true,
but I would have to look at the list of the respective organisations
to see whether that is right. My instinct says it is not quite
right.
Q24 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Relevant
to the Neighbourhood Policy, obviously, is something as fundamental
as Energy Policy. I understand that the Union is publishing or
launching a document today. On Monday we had the blockage of Russian
exports to Belarus. Clearly it is a threat which affected Ukraine
in the past and it could affect other countries. To what extent
have we responded? To what extent are we seeking to diversify,
particularly in respect of the European Neighbourhood Policy?
Are we using our linkage with affected countries constructively
as a result of the Russians' use of oil, clearly, as a weapon?
Mr Hoon: From the EU's perspective, we want
to see agreements respected. We want to see a secure energy supply,
with suppliers and consumers able to rely on agreements that have
been made historically. On the specific dispute, we want all sides
to engage in discussion rather than take unilateral action. I
did see this morning some very strong comments from Chancellor
Merkel—I am sure, speaking both on behalf of Germany and
equally on behalf of the Presidency—indicating her concern
about recent developments, so it is something that the EU have
taken very seriously. We had a long discussion at the Finnish
informal about energy policy. It is something that all countries
feel very strongly about, not surprisingly.
Q25 Lord Anderson of Swansea: I know
we are renegotiating with Russia—I think in the German Presidency—the
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. To what extent will Russia's
energy policy be a factor in that renegotiation?
Mr Hoon: Coincidentally, at that informal we
also discussed the renewal of negotiations of the agreement. The
view of the UK Government which I expressed at that meeting was
that we want a high level comprehensive agreement with Russia,
and obviously we want Russia to accept previous agreements, to
acknowledge that it has responsibilities as a major supplier not
to interrupt supplies. Part of the thinking behind our wish to
see a comprehensive agreement is that this should be more than
simply a token arrangement between the EU and Russia: it should
be a detailed set of agreements that Russia would accept and recognise
in all circumstances.
Q26 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Poland,
for example, is wholly dependent on Russian oil.
Mr Hoon: It is not only Poland that is energy
reliant on Russia.
Q27 Lord Lea of Crondall: I have
a question on institutional/treaty change. As you will know, Minister,
we recently produced a report commenting on the Europe
in the World communication from the Commission and we noted
that much could be done within the present treaties. We were wondering
how the Government's thinking is evolving, perhaps on the principle,
if I may put it this way, of pragmatism, that there could, however,
be some measures which would be desirable where you do hit an
institutional road block. Could you tell us the state of the Government's
thinking? Are there institutional road blocks or can most of the
desirable changes in this field be done without treaty change
or even without institutional change?
Mr Hoon: It was a helpful and valuable report
and it broadly reflects Government thinking, which is that a number
of detailed changes can be made without institutional reform.
We believe that a great deal has been achieved as far as the Common
Foreign and Security Policy is concerned. It is working extremely
well, not least, if I may say so, because of the determination
and energy of Javier Solana, who I think has done a tremendous
job on behalf of the EU. We want to see that work continue, develop,
strengthen in the areas where it is possible to do so without
treaty change, but we acknowledge that there will be pressure,
not least from other countries, to see those changes in due course.
I am reminded by Anthony that we will be giving a formal reply
next week to your report.
Q28 Lord Lea of Crondall: Thank you.
In that connection, I think it is fair to say the Government are
being a little more ready to take initiatives on this big debate
rather than waiting for France or Germany to either take all the
initiatives or, indeed, wrap something up and then we are asked
to comment on it. I am characterising the position in a provocative
way in order for you to comment on how we are taking initiatives.
Mr Hoon: I am struggling to identify particular
initiatives. The German Government's position—publicly,
at any rate—is that it wants to see the treaty implemented.
There has been a very interesting speech by Nicolas Sarkozy, not
on behalf of the French Government but I suspect on behalf of
a potential candidate for the Presidency. Beyond that, I am not
clear that there have been initiatives.
Q29 Lord Lea of Crondall: If Angela
Merkel is looking to have some movement in the debate.
Mr Hoon: That is not a German initiative. The
German Government are proposing as part of their Presidency essentially
sounding out all 27 Member States as to what they believe is the
way forward on the Constitutional Treaty. Not surprisingly, the
British Government will take a vigorous part in that.
Q30 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Do you
think the EU is operating without a ratified constitution satisfactorily?
Mr Hoon: We supported the treaty. We negotiated
vigorously in the best interests of the United Kingdom. We acknowledge,
therefore, that there are areas where institutional change would
be of assistance to the EU. But this was a complex, balanced package.
In the various meetings I have had around the EU, one of the very
strong points made not only by the United Kingdom but by a number
of other countries was that this was a compromise, even with,
inevitably, a series of measures which, taken together, have allowed
countries to agree them. Therefore, finding a solution to the
problem of the referendum defeats in France and the Netherlands
is not something that can simply be identified at this stage.
That is precisely why the German Government are seeking the views
of Member States as to a possible way forward.
Q31 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: To paraphrase
your answer: you think that the EU would operate more satisfactorily
if it had a written constitution but do you think it is operating
satisfactorily now without it?
Mr Hoon: I was once a constitutional lawyer
and I have to say that the EU has always had a written constitution.
That written constitution was embodied in the Treaty of Rome and
the series of amendments for that treaty, agreed by successive
governments, including Conservative ones.
Q32 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: Do you
think it is working satisfactorily now, with the situation we
are in at the moment?
Mr Hoon: I think I have already answered that
question. I said that we acknowledged in our support for the Constitutional
Treaty that there were areas where it was necessary to make changes
in order to improve the efficiency of decision-making in the European
Union. But, given the difficulties in France and the Netherlands,
it does not appear likely that the treaty in its present form
will go forward. We still need to find a consensus, either on
that or any other solution that the German Presidency are seeking
to identify.
Q33 Lord Tomlinson: Angela Merkel,
in her very interesting interview with The Times
yesterday, seemed to be saying three very clear things, amongst
others. One was the imperative of the United Kingdom involvement
in getting past this impasse; the second was the imperative of
institutional change in order to facilitate decision-making in
the European Union; and the third was that there should be no
further enlargement unless and until. How far would you share
her views?
Mr Hoon: I am always grateful for support from
important Member States to the UK's role. I had an interesting
visit to Berlin shortly before Christmas where some of those points
were made to me—perhaps rather more bluntly than the German
Chancellor made them in her interview. My answer is consistent
with the answer I gave to Lord Hamilton, which is that the real
problem, for the moment, at any rate, is not in the United Kingdom;
the real problem is finding a way through to votes in France and
the Netherlands, that, in my view, are unlikely to be repeated.
There is a sense in certain parts of the German political establishment—not,
I think, shared by the Chancellor, but elsewhere—that the
solution is for France and the Netherlands to vote again. I am
not convinced that that is politically sensible or practical.
But I have acknowledged that in the treaty itself there are measures
which the British Government believes will help the efficient
operation of the EU. We have to find a way in which to look at
those issues, but, as the noble Lord knows better than I do, these
are matters which can only be achieved by consensus. As far as
enlargement is concerned, the UK continues to strongly support
the question of enlargement, but, again, that requires the agreement
of all 27 Member States. We have always supported enlargement.
We believe that that is important to the EU and the recent accession
to the EU we believe to be of tremendous benefit to the European
Union. We would not want to see that process stopped.
Q34 Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:
Minister, can you give us your assessment of what the real
state of play is over Turkey now. It is the visceral question.
What is your assessment of what will happen if Turkey is blocked
in its candidature? Wherever one goes, this is the question. It
reflects back to the conversation we were having before about
the Middle East, because it is raised—certainly I have it
raised with me when I am in the countries of the Middle East—about
the move, as it is seen, to block an Islamic country. Clearly
we have taken a very strong stance in support of the Turkish candidature
but how do you see this working out?
Mr Hoon: We were ... What is the right word?
We were relieved at the result achieved in the General Affairs
and External Relations Council in December. I was personally relieved
because, having spent months travelling to Ankara, to Istanbul,
to Athens and meeting with the Greek Cypriots on a pretty regular
basis, I felt that the outcome, although not precisely what the
British Government would have wanted, was nevertheless acceptable
and it allowed negotiations to continue in all but the eight areas
identified in the decision. It means, therefore, that negotiations
can continue. In any event, negotiations on all of the dossiers
never occurs simultaneously and there is always a process whereby
some dossiers are taken ahead of others. It will allow Turkey
to make progress in a number of significant areas. Nevertheless,
we have always acknowledged in all the meetings I have had with
my Turkish counterparts that they agreed to the additional Ankara
Protocol and that that is a fundamental aspect of European law
to which they must at some stage adhere. I hope that with the
breathing space, in effect, that the General Affairs Council decision
has provided, we can find a way through this problem without quite
the pressure of time that appeared to be building up towards the
end of the Finnish Presidency. I hope that is a realistic assessment
of where we are.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: It will
do very nicely for now. Thank you.
Q35 Lord Anderson of Swansea: In
respect of the chapters to be opened, is it fair to say that,
in spite of the Council decision and the Commission recommendation,
Cyprus has currently blocked any movement in respect of three
chapters?
Mr Hoon: That is not my understanding at the
moment, no. Let me make sure I have that right.
Mr Smith: I would add that the week after the
European Council endorsed the General Affairs Council conclusions
on Turkey, the negotiations at working level resumed and there
was cooperation among all Member States to make progress in the
way that the Council had decided, so things are moving forward
now.
Lord Anderson of Swansea: Thank you very
much.
Q36 Lord Lea of Crondall: I think
the Minister is aware of the report we did on the EU and Africa.
We were quite shocked by the logistics' inadequacies of the African
Union. It is very well illustrated by Darfur: they have just two
or three people with technical competence dealing with it, and
we are very pleased to see the EU beefing up its contribution
to the infrastructure and logistics. Would you be able to comment
on how far the EU, as a whole, at political level is strongly
committing itself now to building up the credibility of the AU,
given that it has to be a factor, side by side with the UN, however
you like to express it, in action in Darfur and no doubt in other
regions in the future?
Mr Hoon: There is a consensus amongst Member
States about the way forward in Darfur. I think it probably reflects
a more general appreciation of a number of conflicts and potential
conflicts in Africa; that is, to emphasise the key role of the
African Union but not simply to say, "This is a matter for
the African Union; it is nothing to do with us" but, I hope
consistent with the question, to demonstrate our continued support
in a practical way. The noble Lord kindly mentioned the logistic
and other support being provided to various policing missions.
I think it is important to continue to build capacity of the African
Union to carry out peace-keeping and reconstruction operations
in Africa. It seems to me much better politically that they should
do so, but clearly they need the capacity—so the logistics,
advice, training and the range of support that we can give. To
build up the ability of the African Union I think is the right
way forward. It is a view shared by all EU Member States.
Mr Smith: As you probably know, the EU is already
the biggest contributor to AU capacity building. There is a balance
to be struck with their need for funding and the AU's own desire
to retain ownership of its development. That is a factor as well.
Q37 Lord Lea of Crondall: Is it realistic
to think of that degree of ownership by the African Member States
of the African Union in these questions of government, security
and development—the triad, if I may put it that way? Are
we just kidding ourselves? Do we think there is more buy-in by
the political leaderships in depth in the African Union Member
States towards the role of the African Union?
Mr Hoon: My impression would be yes.
Q38 Lord Chidgey: The Government,
admirably, have put a lot of effort into supporting the African
Union and its Member States' efforts to develop good governance,
transparency, anti-corruption measures and so forth, certainly
supporting NEPAD and so forth. NEPAD, of course, is a new initiative
in the first instance, and I am interested to hear from you, Minister,
whether the Government has been able to get its counterpart Member
States in the EU to share the enthusiasm that we clearly do have
for supporting the African Union and the NEPAD initiative to make
the African countries and Africa as a continent a more amenable
and more acceptable and more attractive continent for us to work
with in the 21st century. There are a lot of aspirations but what
is the concrete development plan?
Mr Hoon: I indicated earlier there is a strong
consensus. I think it is fair to say that different countries,
as a result of their different colonial history in Africa, have
different bilateral relationships, but, having dealt when I was
Defence Secretary with Sierra Leone and watched, for example,
France deal with the Côte D'Ivoire, it seemed to me that
there were very similar issues involved and that, despite our
different colonial history and relationships with different countries,
there is an acknowledgement, certainly in France and the UK, perhaps
the major providers of military capacity, that supporting and
building up the AU to deal with these issues, providing the requisite
training and assistance, is the right way forward. I have never
had an argument with anyone in the EU about this; it seems to
me to be a sensible way forward. It acknowledges that it is best
for the African continent if African forces are engaged in the
kind of peace building and reconstruction tasks that are necessary
in a number of the conflicts in Africa.
Q39 Lord Chidgey: And the support
is forthcoming as well as the aspirations.
Mr Hoon: I think you will find that most EU
Member States are prepared to help. As I say, I have never detected
any lack of enthusiasm. I have mentioned France and the UK but
Portugal and Germany have their own relationships with the African
continent and acknowledge that it is a continent where we must
be rigorous in providing the kind of support to avoid some of
these fortunately currently low-level conflicts becoming higher-level
ones.
| 
