Examination of Witnesses (Questions 239
- 259)
WEDNESDAY 19 DECEMBER 2007
Mr Jim Murphy, Ms Shan Morgan, Mr Paul Berman and
Mr Martin Shearman
Q239 Chairman:
Minister, welcome once again to this Committee. We appreciate
your giving of your valuable time to meet with us. You have the
declaration of interests of Members of the Committee. Firstly,
I would like very much indeed to welcome Shan Morgan, Paul Berman
and Martin Shearman. Would you like to make an opening statement,
Minister?
Mr Murphy: I am just delighted to be here. I
have been looking forward to today's evidence session as my last
event before I head back north for the festive break, so that
is all I would say, that I have been looking forward to it.
Q240 Chairman:
Then, if we could go straight into questions, the first thing
we wanted to get your feelings on is the extension of Union competence
made by the Reform Treaty, what your feelings are about this,
what is the effect on the institutions and who is likely to gain
the most from it.
Mr Murphy: There are formally, as I think your
Lordships are aware, five extensions, the five Articles which
extend competence, and they are on space policy, energy policy,
tourism, civil protection and administrative co-operation, so
those are the five formal extensions of Union competence. However,
Lord Grenfell, within your question of course there is the underlying
point about which of the institutions in the complex dynamic of
all the different institutions could be perceived or anticipated
to gain most and, to some extent, it depends on one's perspective
on the impact of the Reform Treaty and one's view of the European
Union more generally. In terms of the European Parliament, we
strongly welcome the extension of co-decision for the European
Parliament, we think it is the right thing, so it is clearly an
extension of power and influence for the European Parliament which
is the correct balance. There is the introduction of the full-time
President of the European Council. Now, ultimately, if one was
to take a purely arithmetic measurement of which sort of institution
gained most on the basis that that is a new post going from no
influence in terms of being a full-time President, then that is
of course an extension of influence, but of course, when it is
compared against the part-time rotating Presidency situation,
maybe that extension of power and influence is less significant.
Perhaps then the only other two I would mention would be on the
Commission itself and part of the increased influence of the Commission
may come from the more effective operation by being smaller and
more effective. The truth is, as we all know, the current arrangement
in the Commission of having one Commissioner per Member State
is not only unwieldy, it is unnecessary. There are not 27 jobs
to do and, quite frankly, without being disrespectful to any one
individual, the truth is, to some extent, you would be scratching
around looking for substantial jobs for 27 people to do, so a
smaller Commission which is more effective could have a significantly
increased informal influence, but I think the jury would be out
on that. Finally, national parliaments, and it is pretty clear
in terms of the powers of national parliaments, the yellow and
orange cards, and then the arrangement by the Prime Minister this
week in the post-European Council statement which of course Baroness
Ashton would have repeated, I think, in your Lordships' House
about an affirmative vote of both Houses before agreeing to transfer
further power. To some extent, my Lord, that is a response to
the question because, ultimately, it is a Treaty proposing new
interactions and new relationships, and that is my assessment
of the expansion of powers and influence of the various institutions.
Q241 Chairman:
There are many who say that there is very little expansion of
the power of the European Union institutions compared to where
we have been before, that there has been a certain amount of extra
power given to them, but not dramatically so. On the other hand,
the Campaign against Euro-federalism argues that the Lisbon Treaty
gives the EU the constitutional form of a state, and they cite
provisions regarding citizenship, legal personality, the formalised
European Council and the permanent President of the European Council.
You can probably give us a fairly short answer to that, but do
you agree with any of that?
Mr Murphy: Firstly, Lord Grenfell, the final
point you made regarding the earlier question, I think by any
accurate, objective assessment about a formal extension of European
Union competence, it would lead you to the conclusion that, in
comparison with other treaties, like Maastricht or the Single
European Act, the extended competence within the Lisbon Treaty
is considerably less than in any of those previous treaties. In
terms of the point about the campaign against a federal Europe,
if that was what was on offer, I would be a member of that campaign
because I am against a federal Europe, so, if there were some
campaign to have a federal Europe, I would be on the opposite
side of this debate, but there is not a campaign to have a federal
Europe. We have said pretty clearly that it is our belief that
a combination of the Lisbon Treaty and the political commitment
that goes alongside it means, and I do not wish to be critical
of anyone, but for those who believe in a federal Europe, I think
that dream is dashed for the foreseeable future. In terms of the
point about citizenship and the European Council, EU citizenship
has been recognised since the Maastricht Treaty. The European
Council has been governed by Treaties since Maastricht, so my
sense, and I said this in the Commons on maybe Monday evening,
is that the opposition to this Treaty is often driven by opposition
to proposals that are not contained within it, and it is about
a general feeling rather than specifics about the Treaty. For
example, one of the criticisms of the official opposition is that
this permanent Presidency of the Council is a power-grab, it is
moving away from a system of 26 weeks. As I have reflected before,
the European Union is the single biggest rules-based market in
human history and yet we have tolerated a system where there is
a rotating leadership every 26 weeks. You would not run a bowling
club, with no disrespect to bowling clubs, on a rotating presidency
of 26 weeks, so I do not see why you should do it in the European
Union.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
Q242 Lord Dykes:
The Government, I recollect, were previously very much opposed
to the conferral of the legal personality. Why did that position
change?
Mr Murphy: Largely because we were able to secure
the distinct treaty status for CFSP, foreign and security policy.
The concern had been that a combination of the sort of single
legal personality to the Union alongside treaty collapse around
CFSP would allow the potential for a blurring of responsibility
on CFSP. Now that that fantastically phrased Pillar 2 has not
collapsed in that sense, that concern has been overcome, as far
as the Government is concerned. I think it is also important just
to acknowledge that of course, the European Community had its
legal personality and the European Union has had in recent years
operational legal personality with over 70 or 80 separate agreements,
so with the retention in a separate Treaty of CFSP, what this
single legal personality does to the Union, the Government feels,
is confirm the existing practice as recognised by very many international
institutions regarding the European Union.
Q243 Lord Dykes:
So effectively there is very little, or no, change at all, would
you say?
Mr Murphy: I think in the operational sense,
there is very little change. It confirms what has become an evolving
practice for the European Union, having signed these dozens of
agreements with other countries and international organisations.
Q244 Chairman:
You are happy that the legal personality will enable the EU to
accede to the Convention on Human Rights?
Mr Murphy: Yes, we are content with that.
Q245 Lord Powell of Bayswater:
Minister, you referred just now to the full-time President of
the European Council, suggesting that this was a significant step
forward, but what is he actually going to do? The original intention,
I think, was that it would be a substantial role and might even
tilt the balance a bit towards intergovernmental co-operation,
but actually his powers seem to be marginal. What power he has,
he has to share with the term presidencies and, when it comes
to his external role, he is going to be trumped by the High Representative
who is going to be present in the Commission and in the Council.
So is he really going to be a full-time President or is he just
going to be a fifth wheel?
Mr Murphy: Most vehicles need a fifth wheel,
if only for a spare, but I accept the point of the President of
the Council. The President of the European Council will have,
I think, an important role primarily about maintaining continuity.
We are in a situation at the moment where of course we are just
coming to the end of the Portuguese Presidency and about to start
the Slovenian Presidency and there is an enormous amount of work
going on to try to ensure a degree of continuity and some of the
issues, by their very nature, will be maintained because there
is a national dynamic around, for example, Kosovo. However, where
there are issues where, if you like, the European Union is responsible
for creating and then maintaining the momentum, I think having
this full-time Presidency of the European Council is a significant
and important step forward not only for handling those external
matters which have their own dynamic, but, more importantly I
feel, when it is the energy within the European Union that drives
the agenda forward, so whether it is on labour market reform or
whether it is on the review of the Lisbon Strategy on jobs, those
sorts of things, that full-time Presidency, I think, is the important
improvement there.
Q246 Lord Powell of Bayswater:
I can see it brings in an element of continuity in the sense that
he/she will physically be there continuously unlike the term presidencies.
But you tried to describe the role and I still do not really get
it. On Kosovo, the High Representative will be dealing with that
and he/she will be dealing with it continuously and will be there
throughout. The European Council itself is a pretty intermittent
organisation, it sort of pops in and out three times a year or
whatever, so how is he really going to exert influence compared
to the Commission President with his extensive legal powers, the
term presidencies and the High Representative? I feel he is just
going to be another panjandrum in the European Union hierarchy.
Mr Murphy: Ultimately, it is a new way of doing
things. I could sit here today and say to your Lordship that this
will be a panacea, but that would be na-ve because it is
not going to be. There are other institutional weaknesses in the
European Union and, more substantially, there are delivery weaknesses
in the European Union which this person in and of himself will
not resolve, but I think moving from the position of 26 weeks
to two and a half years gives us the potential. Now, as I understand
it, in the Treaty I think there are four specific roles about
chairing the European Council meetings, co-ordinating the work,
providing reports and then seeking consensus within the European
Council. I think in that job description, it gives us the opportunity,
it does not give us the guarantee, but it gives us the opportunity
for such work to have a momentum, for an initiative not to be
lost in the passing of this diplomatic baton that currently occurs,
and I think that is an important step forward, but the proof of
it will be in the actual delivery. Talking to fellow ministers
across Europe, there is real determination to make this work because
everyone accepts it and almost everyone accepts that the status
quo leads to a degree of inefficiency, it just does. The truth
is that, in the 26-week period, one can speculate as to how much
of that 26 weeks one country actually owns because, for the last
three or four weeks, in truth, everyone is looking towards the
next Presidency and, for the first three or four weeks, the new
Presidency is finding its own feet, so, of that 26 weeks, it is
possibly only 16 or 18 weeks when one is actually operating at
full speed.
Q247 Lord Roper:
Do you see the President of the Council having a role in terms
of bilateral summits with other major partners?
Mr Murphy: I think there is a role there, yes.
Q248 Lord Roper:
He would lead, would he?
Mr Murphy: I do not know if he would lead. He
would certainly attend. I think there would be a role for the
President of the Commission, depending of course on what the summit
would be, but there would be potentially a role for the President
of the Commission, there is potentially a role for the High Representative,
depending on whether it is an international issue relating to
security or foreign policy, and then there is potentially a role
for the President of the European Council. I think a relatively
small part of the President of the European Council's job will
be about foreign and security policy and much of that will be
of course with the High Representative's role, but the anticipation
is that there certainly is a role for the President of the European
Council to attend such gatherings.
Q249 Lord Kerr of Kinlochard:
On the internal role of the President of the European Council,
do you think, Minister, that the European Council will be better
prepared? I take Lord Powell's point, but, when he was a great
panjandrum in the European Union, there only were 12 Member States
and there was a tradition, I remember, that the President of the
European Council would visit all the other Member State capitals
in the two or three weeks before a European Council, preparing
the agenda, finding out what they wanted, trying to sell them
the possible outcome, but that has lapsed with 27 Member States,
and with all the Presidents of the European Council having full-time
jobs as the Prime Ministers of their various countries. I wonder
if you think it will work better when that sort of tradition can
be revived again, when there is a full-time President of the European
Council?
Mr Murphy: Over the period of two and a half
years, I would say it is unlikely that the full-time President
of the European Council would not seek to visit all Member States.
I think it would be poor form, bad politics and it would be open
to all sorts of accusations and insinuations. However, it is unconditionally
unrealistic to expect, as I think has been acknowledged in the
question, in this rotating Presidency for the outgoing rotating
Presidency to come anywhere close to meeting all 26 other Member
States. One could try at international gatherings, but, even there,
to have a substantial conversation bilaterally with 26 other Heads
of Government would be extraordinarily difficult. It is also worth
reflecting that, if we continue with the current system, which
we have no intention of doing, of this rotating Presidency, each
Member State would have a turn every 13½ years to offer some
sort of direct leadership and momentum. As has been suggested
by your Lordship, I think that is an important improvement, that
someone, perhaps not in advance of taking up their post, but certainly
in the period of carrying out their post, would be expected to
visit the vast majority, if indeed not all, of the Member States.
Q250 Chairman:
So, in a sense, in the role of the President, he or she is going
to be more of the internal fixer rather than the external face
of the European Union?
Mr Murphy: I think, my Lord, he would attend
external gatherings and would, on occasion, speak on behalf of
the European Council, when of course there is agreement and unanimity,
but I would anticipate, certainly at the earlier part of this
process, for the substantial part of the job to be an internal
job. The Treaty has set out, and I have scribbled it here because
I knew I would not remember it, but in section 9C(6)(a) are set
out four specific roles and it is about chairing, co-ordinating,
reporting and endeavouring to create consensus within the European
Council, so I think all four of those have a clear internal responsibility
and that is important, I think, for us all to acknowledge at the
start of this process.
Q251 Lord Powell of Bayswater:
Would you agree that he is likely to have a large additional staff?
Mr Murphy: There would certainly be a need for
ministerial support and staff support, but what we have got to
get absolutely correct is the relationship between whatever staff
would support the full-time President of the European Council
and the staff that are going to support the High Representative,
which then is about getting absolutely right the External Action
Service. For example, there has been no decision taken on the
External Action Service, but, for example, it clearly will largely
be about supporting the High Representative in the carrying out
of his duties, but where the President of the European Council,
in his responsibility, takes on any role on security and foreign
policy perhaps at a European Council gathering, it is important
that there are not two sets of staff, recreating some of the unnecessary
silos that have been all too common, not just in the European
Union, but common in most major organisations, so yes, there needs
a staff level that has its roles and responsibilities with the
External Action Service properly worked out.
Chairman: Let us look at some of the influences
on the President of the European Council.
Q252 Baroness Howarth of Breckland:
Before I move on to my question, it is a long way from welfare
reform which is where we met last, I think one of the issues that
we are really trying to tease out is this comparative power role
and relationship between the individuals who will be working.
Whereas I can see the short-termism of the previous arrangement,
which is what you have been referring to very clearly, and in
managerial terms it makes more sense in terms of continuity of
work, the real difficulty is whether there is clear definition
between the High Representative and the President of the European
Council, and there are job descriptions, but in terms of clear
definition, I am interested in that. I am also interested in whether
or not he or she, because the President will not have the same
authority as sitting Heads of Government, is likely to be beholden
to the larger groupings of governments and how will we ensure
that there will be that measure of independence in hearing what
needs to be heard through the Council?
Mr Murphy: When I had left welfare reform, I
thought I was into a nice, easy job, after taking the Welfare
Reform Bill through Parliament, but it was not to be the case!
The point is, I think, that the President of the European Council
will derive their authority from the Prime Ministers and Presidents
of the 27 Member States, so ultimately that will be the source
of their authority, elected of course, I am sure I am right in
saying, by QMV, so I understand the concern which is a traditional
concern in Europe which is that, if one were to get the UK, France
and Germany, colloquially put, to one side, then that would create
a diplomatic dynamic that would lead to uncertainty, but things
are changing. They have not yet changed, but I think we are in
the process of changing, and I think that is a good thing, that,
with 27 Member States, there is a breakdown of that system whereby
one or two States can call all the shots, if you like, in terms
of picking someone to perform any of these roles, so I think it
is important, and all Member States, quite rightly, wish to become
deeply involved in making sure that whoever gets these jobs is
the right person for that role. In terms of the managerial point,
it is absolutely essential before this starts, after the Treaty
is ratified across, if the Treaty is ratified across, all 27 Member
States, before this is agreed, the exact roles, responsibilities
and relationships have to be ironed out in precise detail. Now,
on the President of the European Council, some of these details
are still to be worked out by the European Council, but it is
important again also to state that that will be by unanimity,
but the UK Government is very alive to the issue that we cannot
allow the enactment of the Treaty across the European Union and
then work out the detail; it has to be nailed down in advance
of the commencement of the operation of the Treaty. It has been
agreed that this would happen through unanimity of the European
Council and that is the way we are going to progress with it.
Q253 Baroness Howarth of Breckland:
Just to follow up the first bit again, in terms of the institutions,
the first part of your answer about the institutions, what in
that reassures us that those things will be worked through before
there are difficulties in terms of those relationships?
Mr Murphy: We have agreed, as 27 Member States
in the European Union, that this has to be worked through before
commencement and that we will do it through the European Council
through a process of consensus, as we seek to do in all of these
things in the European Council of course, although we do not always
succeed, but we seek to do it. There is agreement by all governments
that this has to be worked through and that the details will be
put in place, so there is a pretty clear understanding across
Europe that that has to happen.
Q254 Baroness Howarth of Breckland:
I suppose finally, is there a timetable for that?
Mr Murphy: The aim for the Treaty ratification
across the 27 Member States, we would like to be, is no sooner
than 1 January 2009 with an expectation to have done so in advance
of the European elections in 2009 which I believe are in June,
so that would be the timescale.
Chairman: Let us move on to the next institutional
question.
Q255 Lord Roper:
Another area where things presumably also have to be worked out
between now and the time the Treaty comes into force is what is
sometimes referred to as a "double-hatted", but is perhaps
a treble-hatted, role of the High Representative, not only with
his current functions enlarged, but also his role as the Vice
President of the Commission and his function as chairing the Foreign
Affairs Council. How is that going to be worked out, including
the question of how is the current business of the General Affairs
and External Relations Council to be disentangled? What will still
be done by the High Representative chairing the Foreign Affairs
Council and what will be done by the rotating President chairing
the General Affairs Council? Will he be taking the business which
comes up from COREPER as distinct from FAC?
Mr Murphy: First of all, on the double-hatting
or treble-hatting, as you have said, that the High Representative
is the Vice President of the Commission and also is the Chair
of the Foreign Affairs Council, first of all, the first two posts
in terms of the Vice President of the Commission and the High
Representative, most people acknowledge that is a sensible reform.
It helps align the external priorities of the European Union with
the budgeting process and with the right support mechanisms, ie
staff, the right support where it has perhaps in the past, without
being too critical, been well acknowledged that there has, on
occasion, been a divergence of priorities and budgets, so that
role being double-hatted, I think, is a sensible and meaningful
reform. As to which issues come out of which gathering, I do not
know whether Shan Morgan wishes to comment because Shan of course
has been one of the sherpas or focal points in the past on the
detail of some of this. As for the High Representative, I am reflecting
on my experience at the General Affairs Council where we have
discussed Pakistan, Iran, Burma, Kosovo and, on the margins, Russia,
and I think all of those issues would still be within the locus
of the High Representative. In terms of COREPER, I do not know
whether, Shan, you wish to say anything.
Ms Morgan: As the Minister said, a lot of this
is still to be worked out and we will be doing that over the course
of the next year. I would just flag up really, to underline what
the Minister has already said, Article 9C, para 6, which sets
out the role of the General Affairs Council rather clearly, "ensuring
consistency in the work of the different Council configurations,
preparing and ensuring the follow-up to meetings of the European
Council in liaison with the President of the European Council
and the Commission". In fact, if you look at the agendas
of what is currently called the "GAERC", there is a
general affairs segment followed by a foreign affairs segment,
and that description of what the new General Affairs Council will
do is very much consistent with what happens at the moment. At
the moment, the general affairs segment of the GAERC will look,
for example, at preparations for the European Council conclusions
that will come through COREPER, so the role of COREPER, as the
Minister was suggesting, will not change in that process, but
the General Affairs Council will continue its horizontal co-ordination
role across all the sectoral councils, as it does at the moment.
Q256 Lord Roper:
Perhaps, in terms of being the Vice President of the Commission,
it would be really interesting to know which of the work of the
present Commissioners would become subject to the Vice President,
for instance, the Development Commissioner, the Enlargement Commissioner,
but what other external action would come under the overall supervision
of the Vice President?
Mr Murphy: It is primarily the current role
of the Commissioner for External Affairs because of course the
High Representative is a merger of both of those positions, so
certainly that would be the main Commissioner responsibility that
the High Representative would have, in addition to the Vice Presidency.
Q257 Lord Roper:
So other areas of external action which are at present the responsibilities
of the Commissioners of, for instance, development, aid, humanitarian
aid and enlargement, would not come under his co-ordinating function?
Mr Murphy: Part of this would be resolved, or
the frank, direct answer is that part of this is dependent on
where we settle as to what the two-thirds of EU membership Commissioners
will be. If one looks at it on the basis that we are 27 Member
States and we are expecting a Commission of two-thirds the size,
so 18 Commissioners, as to exactly which residual functions and
job titles are in this streamlined Commission, at that point we
would then determine which parts of the formal responsibilities
of previous Commissioners, but the one that lends itself immediately,
and this is stated very clearly, is the External Affairs Commissioner,
but it is reasonable to expect that there would be a role on international
development, debt relief and perhaps on issues of expansion and
human rights, but part of this will be resolved as a wider reconfiguration
of the Commission as well.
Q258 Lord Roper:
But there will of course be a period between the establishment
of the double-hatted Commissioner and the Vice President while
there still are 27 Commissioners.
Mr Murphy: Yes, that is right, so in that period
the major role will be the External Affairs Commissioner.
Q259 Chairman:
But the question of trade negotiations, that remains entirely
separate, does it?
Mr Murphy: Yes.
|
