Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-34)
Mr Jim Murphy and Mr Ananda Guha
15 JULY 2008
Q20 Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: Minister,
I am addicted to European Council Conclusions texts, and I am
sure Lord Powell of Bayswater is too: we wilt when we have not
seen one for three months. This is a particularly good Conclusions
text, containing lots of very good paragraphs, like the one on
the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Biological
Diversity Convention or the one on the Pilot Mobility Partnerships
with Cape Verde and Moldova. The odd thing is that there is no
paragraph about the Doha Round. There is a reference to the Doha
Round, which is my candidate for the bit the Brits managed to
slip in: it is a passing reference in paragraph 35, which is one
of the many paragraphs about high food prices, to the point that
"the EU will continue to strive for a comprehensive, ambitious
and balanced conclusion of the Doha Round". Was there in
fact any discussion of the Doha Round in the European Council?
If there was, was it useful? If there was not, was it just as
well that there was not?
Mr Murphy: Your Lordships, I do hope
that my testimony on these occasions displays that I do try to
predict the types of questions that are asked. I know that sometimes
perhaps I give an alternative impression, but certainly I aim
to give the impression that I read and try to predict the questions
that may be asked. I think I could spend an awful lot of time
trying to predict Lord Kerr's questions, but unsuccessfully. The
last time it was, "Who was the author of this particular
section?" and now it is, "Is this half a sentence the
summit of the UK's negotiating success?" Now, really what
happened is that it was not discussed in detail at the June Council,
but it was discussed at the May General Affairs Council. It was
not felt on the basis of progress, and we think progress can be
made, and I know a number of your Lordships were in Geneva relatively
recently and received your own, or were given some, insight into
the process, but, on the basis that it was discussed at the May
General Affairs Council, there was not felt the need, in the context
of the Irish referendum issue, to have a substantial conversation
on Doha.
Q21 Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: There
seems to have been some discussion at press conferences about
Mr Mandelson and his mandate!
Mr Murphy: There was a lot of discussion
at the press conferences about our excellent Trade Commissioner,
Mr Mandelson, who is doing a superb job, and the Prime Minister
again gave him his full vote of confidence. Peter Mandelson has
a very difficult job, you know that, and he has had a really remarkable
period of wide-ranging restructure and reform and, for it to be
successful, there has to be a degree of give and take on all sides
and, as a consequence, it leads to, as I have said before, an
awful lot of heat and not a lot of light sometimes when people
offer their reflections at press conferences on Mr Mandelson who,
in the difficult circumstances, is doing at the moment a spectacularly
good job.
Q22 Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: And
the mandate remains unchanged until it is changed, and the European
Council made no attempt to change it?
Mr Murphy: Absolutely, I should have
added that, that his mandate is agreed unanimously and, on the
basis that it was not discussed substantially at the Council,
there was not any attempt to rewrite or redraft his mandate. Others
may have commented about his mandate after the event, but they
did not then raise it at the Council to redraft his mandate.
Q23 Lord Roper: There was a reference
in the public prints today of a letter from six Member States,
suggesting that the position of our Trade Commissioner should
be supported. Is that not slightly worrying, the fact that there
were only six? If you are only going to get six people writing,
saying it is a good thing, does it not suggest that there might
be a problem about the other 21?
Mr Murphy: I would have to enquire as
to the attitudes of the other 21, but the fact is that his mandate
was agreed, so that is very clear, it was unanimous, a very strong
mandate. Others simply believe that they do not do their diplomacy
by letter to the British media or any other media, and I think
that is a fair way of saying it.
Q24 Chairman: Well, I think the Council,
in devoting 16 words to the Doha Round in its Conclusions, probably
was playing safe because maybe they did not want to open the Pandora's
box on that one at that meeting.
Mr Murphy: And there is the proposed
ministerial meeting on the 21st of this month.
Chairman: But it remains a very, very major concern,
so while I think we understand why it did not command more attention
actually in the Council, it certainly got a good going over in
the press conferences.
Q25 Lord Roper: My Lord Chairman,
I wonder if I could ask about enlargement and how far the delays
on the Lisbon Treaty are considered by some Member States to have
an effect on the prospects for further enlargement and indeed
perhaps the possibility of moving to candidate status for some
of the countries which have Stabilisation and Association Agreements
in the Western Balkans? I wonder how the British Government sees
this and how things are, going forward, particularly with respect
to Croatia and Turkey?
Mr Murphy: Well, on a legal basis and
on a potential conclusion basis, the Irish referendum and the
situation with the Lisbon Treaty has no effect whatsoever, none
whatsoever, no legal basis, no conclusion basis. The reason why
I was looking through my notes is I wanted to share with your
Lordships the fact that in France, and your Lordships may already
be aware of this, but I think today in France there is a draft
Constitutional Amendment Bill which is being discussed in the
French Senate today and, contrary to much of the speculation of
some of the proposed ideas about France having a referendum on
a new membership of the European Union which increased the population
of the European Union by 5%, that is no longer part of the package
of proposals, which, I think, is a good thing. As to what has
been suggested, it is too early to report on the progress, I think,
of the debate, but, if it is passed in the French Senate today,
all EU accessions need a referendum, unless a three-fifths majority
of the Senate declare otherwise and it then goes to the Congress,
so there is a 60% threshold of the Senate, which is probably,
on balance, I think, a better position than what was initially
being suggested. The situation remains as it was pre-Irish referendum,
first of all for Her Majesty's Government, of continued conditions-based
accession processes for the Balkans and Turkey, in particular.
It is very clear during the French Presidency of the EU that they
will maintain that process and it is important that, as the Presidency,
they do maintain that process and it is very clear that they will.
There is the separate issue of course of Turkey and the AKP Party
and, if your Lordships wish and time allows, we can discuss what
certainly is very clear, as a process of accession, Council conclusions
and legal position.
Chairman: I think Croatia is not affected by whatever
happens in the French Senate anyway and were they not excluded
from that?
Lord Roper: After Croatia.
Q26 Chairman: Yes, everything that
comes after Croatia.
Mr Murphy: There is some talk about that
at the moment as it is not clear whether it was intended by the
proposals, but there is some speculation that Croatia would be
affected, but equally the political antennae would say that you
would quite clearly get a 60% majority in the Senate to waive
the referendum requirement for Croatia, whereas it may be more
difficult for Turkey.
Q27 Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: But,
if Nice survives, then the reduction in the size of the Commission
is accelerated—
Mr Murphy: That is right.
Q28 Lord Kerr of Kinlochard:—because
Lisbon would have deferred it and defined it. So it now stays
undefined, but the number of commissioners has to be smaller than
the number of Member States when the next one comes in?
Mr Murphy: Yes.
Q29 Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: That
will be a problem, will it not, Minister?
Mr Murphy: Whether it is a problem, and
they do not really describe it as that, it is certainly an unresolved
issue. This was the irony of the Irish situation, that the Lisbon
Treaty prolonged the period in which Ireland was guaranteed a
commissioner and yet the debate managed to be about Ireland losing
its Commissioner. It is a great irony that it was the one issue
of substance that was actually in the Treaty that got some attraction
as a negative in the public debate rather than at least a kind
of moderate positive, as it clearly is, so, if Croatia were to
join, your Lordship is right, this issue of commissioner numbers
would have to be resolved at that point.
Q30 Lord Wright of Richmond: Really
this is a wrap-up question, in other words, are there other subjects
that were discussed that you want to tell us about, in particular,
immigration, both immigration from outside the EU and population
movement within the EU?
Mr Murphy: On immigration, the main thing
was about support for FRONTEX and this point about, as your Lordship
said, the migration within and around the European Union, but
trying to deal more effectively with immigration at source and,
in the jargon, the kind of global approach and, rather than trying
to act when illegal immigrants are within the European Union,
actually dealing with it at source, better policing, development
policy and so much else besides. Ourselves and the Spanish Government
recently made some announcements, and, if the record shows otherwise,
my Lord Chairman, I am happy to provide details, about the specific
bilateral work we are doing with the Spanish Government in specific
countries in Africa on joint co-operation to this global approach
on immigration. Other issues which were discussed, which for the
record may be helpful, included Zimbabwe, Burma, the Millennium
Development Goals and also the Western Balkans. Now, it is up
to your Lordships, Chairman, whether you wish me to correspond
on those issues or whether time allows us to have questions.
Chairman: Well, there was quite a lot on the Western
Balkans, including quite a substantial annex to it on that region.
Does anybody want to go into any further detail on that? I am
not sure that we need to; I think it is fairly explicit in the
Presidency Conclusions. On the other issue that you mentioned,
I think we are fairly clear on that.
Q31 Lord Wright of Richmond: Chairman,
if I can just go back to immigration, was there any questioning
of what the Italian Government are doing at the moment with the
Roma and other issues?
Mr Murphy: Certainly there was comment
about what the Italian Government are doing on the fringes. I
think that our colleagues in the Spanish Government, in particular,
have been very vocal in their observation about what is happening
in Italy. Our view is that Italy faces its own immigration challenges
and we face our own immigration challenges and within their own
law and within the rules of the European norm, as long as they
fulfil those, it is not for us to second-guess the Italian Government's
position, whether we agree with their policy or whether we disagree
with their policy, and that is the position the Government has
taken, so there has been comment, but not discussion.
Q32 Chairman: I just have one last
question for you and that refers to the Millennium Development
Goals because these are going to be missed, they cannot be achieved,
certainly from everything that we read. What sort of message did
the Council give us on the Millennium Development Goals, that
we just carry on and do the best we can? What is the situation?
Mr Murphy: Well, there is an agreement
to, I think, double overseas development aid by 2010, I believe
it is, half of which would go to Africa, but your Lordship is
right, on the current trajectory, we are not on track to hit these
Millennium Development Goals. Now, regardless of any individual
observations about wider policies, there is a general view that
the UK Government is perhaps about the most engaged, or certainly
amongst the most engaged, in the European Union about trying to
force the pace of this so that all European governments do what
they can to hit this 0.7 target. There was an attempt, again not
formally, and it is important to mention that, not formally, but
there was certainly some comment on the side of, "Couldn't
we just repackage some of this?" in the context of global
economic challenges, "Can we not redefine and repackage some
of it?" by some other governments. The important thing here
is that there was no formal attempt to take a step back from the
investment that is necessary by European governments, so a recommitment
to the Millennium Development Goals and a commitment to hit that
0.7 target, a doubling by 2010 with half going to Africa. As I
say, there was some, I think, entirely unhelpful commentary by
some politicians in other Member States of, "Couldn't we
revisit this in the current economic climate?" and our argument
is very clearly that, in this economic climate, it would be a
disaster to revisit our responsibilities. If anything, we should
be trying to improve our delivery rather than curtailing it, but
I am pleased to say that that view on the fringes did not meet
with any approval.
Q33 Chairman: But it does still leave
open this question of how valuable these kinds of goals are, given
the fact that we can see on the evidence that countries where
there is civilian strife, civil war, whatever, particularly bad
conditions, were always bound to drag down the average performance
of countries involved in the Millennium Development Goals because
the good countries do well and the bad countries do badly. Surely,
there is a question as to how useful these goals are? When you
try to put everything together rather than disaggregate, you are
bound to end up with disappointment.
Mr Murphy: I think that is an important
point. Perhaps, if your Lordships have not already got this information,
it may be helpful, where possible, to disaggregate and update
your Lordships on which countries we are on track on and which
countries the international community is off-beam on. You are
entirely right, the impact of conflict to set back any progress
is remarkable. Your Lordships will be aware of this, that very
quickly the steps backward are more dramatic, much quicker and
more enduring than any progress that is made in steps forward;
it is pretty remarkable.
Q34 Lord Tomlinson: My Lord Chairman,
perhaps I can just ask a brief supplementary on that very point
because I think it would be very helpful if the Minister did produce
us that sort of disaggregated figure for Africa, but, alongside
it for each of the countries, could he perhaps make some sort
of indicative comment about the view of the Government in relation
to progress that has been made on the quality of the governance
in some of those countries?
Mr Murphy: I will happily provide whatever
information in the most readable form as is humanly possible.
Perhaps I can define it by saying that the Millennium Development
Goals, although we are currently not on track, I do still believe,
serve a remarkable political function. It is a great cause and
they are signed up to voluntarily by a collection of democracies
and it is a perpetual challenge to go further, and I think that
is the kind of longer-term function of these Millennium Development
Goals.
Chairman: Well, Minister, thank you very much indeed.
Unless anybody has got any other question they would like to put
to the Minister, may I thank you very warmly, as always, for coming
to meet with us to give us the benefit of yours and the Government's
views on the Council. We look forward to meeting you after the
next Council, and we thank you and Mr Guha for being with us.
|
