Examination of Witnesses (Questions 355-359)
Mr Jim Murphy and Ms Jennifer Cole
3 JULY 2008
Q355Chairman: Mr Murphy, we are very
pleased to see you. As you know, we have been carrying out an
inquiry into the European Security Strategy and therefore most
of the questions today will be dealing with that. We were in Brussels
at the beginning of this week and we are very grateful to UKRep
for having laid on a very good programme for us. In particular,
on Tuesday morning Tim Barrow, our Ambassador to the PSC, organised
a breakfast for a number of his colleagues from other countries
of the EU and we had a very interesting discussion with them about
different perspectives of different countries on the Security
Strategy. I merely say this because I wanted you to know how grateful
we were to your colleagues in Brussels for having done so much
to make our visit so worthwhile. We would also like to thank you
for the informative letter you sent us on 26 May setting out in
a number of ways the Government's views on the Security Strategy.
I wonder whether you could perhaps as the first question let us
know what progress has been made in reviewing the Strategy since
you wrote. We do know that because there was other business at
the last meeting of the European Council, the discussion which
had been expected did not take place but we would be interested
to know how you see that being caught up and how in particular
you see the process moving forward under the French presidency.
Mr Murphy: Thank you, Lord Chairman.
I am delighted to be here again to offer reflections and evidence.
I do apologise in advance that we may be interrupted. Also, I
appreciate you putting on record your Lordship's appreciation
of the team we have at UKRep, and I will of course draw their
attention to the very kind comments you have quite rightly made.
In terms of the progress we have made, you are right in saying
that the report that had been envisaged was postponed in light
of other pressures, but there is a very clear view and, importantly,
a very clear determination of all those involved that this can
still be concluded with a report in December. There is anticipation
of a substantial discussion at the Gymnich meeting in September
so, despite the lack of discussion last month, it remains on track.
I think some of those discussions are now happening informally
rather than in a formal, gathered conversation. The good news
is it is on track, unaffected by other events.
Q356 Chairman: Perhaps I could just
raise that point. Given that there will be this discussion at
the Gymnich meeting, and I know it is an informal meeting, but
if it were possible after that meeting, if there was anything
further that you felt you could write to us about, giving us a
feel of the way things were going, it would obviously be quite
helpful for us in the preparation of our report.
Mr Murphy: I will happily do so, and
if your Lordships consider it more appropriate for me to give
evidence again, I am entirely in your Lordships' hands.
Q357 Lord Hamilton of Epsom: During
our visit to Brussels at the beginning of the week the point was
emphasised, which we had really had from people giving evidence
here, that there were great dangers with this strategy, that it
was going to be rewritten as a much more massive document than
we now have. I think people in Brussels confirmed that they rather
admired the document as it exists, because it is short and simple
and everybody understands it. It is quite interesting, because
everybody says we do not want a Christmas tree, as it was rather
elegantly described by one of the British people. He talked about
a Christmas tree with hooks, because there is this concept that
everybody comes with just their little bit that they want to put
on it. We had this breakfast with a number of ambassadors. They
all broadly agreed, but each one had something different—Russia,
the Caucasus, West Balkans. Our Committee is equally guilty. We
have people with things they want put on it. So although we agree
in principle that we should not cover this thing in enlargement,
everybody has their little contribution that they want to make.
Do you think it is going to be very difficult to keep this document
as slim and comprehensive as the original one?
Mr Murphy: I should introduce Ms Jennifer
Cole. It was remiss of me not to do so. As your Lordships can
see, Jennifer is the ESDP and EU External Spend Team Leader in
the Foreign Office. I think it is inevitable and actually desirable
for this refreshed Strategy to have greater substance than the
previous one. There is no intention to say that the existing Strategy
is no longer valid. In fact, there are important parts of it,
of course, that are as valid today as they were when they were
drafted but, as your Lordships will be aware, Her Majesty's Government
view is that the current Strategy is relatively silent on issues
of climate change and security, the interaction of climate change
with migration and a series of other issues. It is not strong
enough perhaps on some aspects of weapons of mass destruction
and others. It is about getting the balance right. You have to
avoid, as you say, a Christmas tree or "kitchen sink"
approach, but it does have to be updated with today's and future
challenges. I am very much aware of the concern that exists in
your Lordships' Committee, and it is a concern that we share in
Government but it is about getting the balance right and updating
this in exactly the right way.
Q358 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Basically,
Javier Solana has been tasked with the business of producing this
by December. The French will clearly have an input but we will
be presented with a hard and fast document in December. Can you
tell us the nature of the informal contacts between our own planners
in the FCO and Solana's team and the French team? How do you envisage
the contacts, formal and informal, between the experts in the
FCO, the planners and others, the energy experts, the climate
experts, and those who are actually remoulding this document?
Mr Murphy: There is a range of interventions
that Her Majesty's Government can utilise, ourselves at the Foreign
Office, DfID, the Department of business and others, on different
aspects of the Strategy through UKREp, through the informal contacts
and discussions we have with the Commission, but, importantly—and
I want to emphasise this point—our work with the French
presidency, our work with the French in advance of their presidency.
OK, it is only a day or two old but our preparations for the French
presidency and in fact their preparation for their presidency
on these matters is pretty strong. I was in Paris last Tuesday
evening to meet my opposite number in the French government who
is leading for them on the presidency, and I think there is a
remarkable proximity between ourselves and the French government,
which I think will be a formidable combination.
Q359 Lord Anderson of Swansea: Can
I ask a further question on this? You have mentioned the way in
which DfID will be involved because it is external yet, with respect,
as a constituency MP, you know that in terms of security that
which affects constituents is security on their streets, security
from terrorism, security from drugs and a range of home programmes.
Is it your view that the Strategy will be slanted, deformed, partial,
because it only focuses on external matters, when on these key
issues—drugs, energy, terrorism—there is an important
domestic agenda, as important certainly as the external? To what
extent will the concerns of the people at home, the citizens,
on domestic matters be reflected in the final outcome or will
it be narrowly external?
Mr Murphy: The Strategy itself will largely
be external, but the European Union's work cannot be exclusively
external, of course. There is separate work on Justice and Home
Affairs-related issues of security under the Hague Programme.
There is a very strong political commitment to have a coherent
approach, and it has been impossible to do anything but have a
coherent approach. I think there will be separate architecture
around the internal and external factors of EU security. If I
can offer a criticism, and it is one that I think needs to be
addressed by those who are working very diligently on the external
work and those who are working equally hard on the internal challenges
of security, my reflection is that at the moment it is not coherent
enough. The two terrorism committees do not meet formally together.
I think there is an informal exchange of information but the two
separate groups of senior officials who are working on this are
too silo-based. If the Strategy is going to be as coherent and
cohesive and holistic, that has to be reflected in the architecture
and the way in which they talk with one another, and that does
not happen enough at the moment.
|
