WEDNESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2000

THE RT HON GEOFFREY HOON AND MR RICHARD HATFIELD

100.  Can I come on to dealing with these committees. How do you see the relationship between this structure of political authority and that which might be embodied in the Contact Group or with the United Nations' Secretary General's High Representative?

  (Mr Hoon) It is part of the way in which the international community responds to given situations. It is almost impossible to be precise about those kinds of relationships in the sense that they depend very much on the politics of a given situation. The one thing I want to emphasise to you, and I have said this already, is that in trying to deal with a crisis we do not all wait until we get into a specific room in order to work out what it is that we are going to do, there is a range of contacts, a range of bilateral discussions, sometimes discussions involving groups of countries, sometimes not, in order to try to make sure that we have a consistent view of the international community. Part of that will clearly involve discussion with the United Nations.

101.  But informally and practically?

  (Mr Hoon) I can conceive of circumstances in which there would be a formal process but I suspect that the reality is in most situations that it would be an informal one.

102.  Can I also refer to the Progress Report as my colleagues have done. In paragraph 6 it refers to arrangements for co-operation between the EU/ESDI institutions and other "non-EU European NATO members". Paragraph 30 of the Progress Report refers to the permanent structures which will be established for dialogue.[3] Could I ask, firstly, how will this co-operation work in practice? What do we actually mean by "permanent structures"? When will they be established? What will be their remit? When we talk about permanent structures, how permanent are we talking about? Are we talking about meeting only when a crisis occurs or will there be a standing arrangement?

  (Mr Hoon) I cannot give you a precise answer to that today because those are matters that we are still working on. At Helsinki the Council agreed the fullest possible involvement and participation of non-EU European allies. What we have to do is to find the practical ways to give expression to that commitment. Let us be realistic about it, these are important countries, these are countries that we want to be involved in the process. Moreover, I think the answer to your question can be found in what I have described as the developing political crisis. Having taken all sorts of decisions escalating the response of the international community at EU level, at the point at which you then decide that you need forces, you could not suddenly ring up Turkey and say "by the way, we would like to use some of your forces" any more than you could any other non-EU ally. The reality would be that you would want them involved in the fullest possible way at every stage in the process. We have yet to find precise institutional mechanisms to achieve that.

103.  You know very well how worked up the Norwegians and the Turks are. Do you think that something can be put together that will give our NATO partners, and very significant NATO partners at each end of the Alliance, the reassurance that they require? The Americans obviously are rooting for them on this.

  (Mr Hoon) "Worked up" I would describe as a little bit of an overstatement, Chairman. Having spoken to both of my counterparts from Norway and Turkey in the relatively recent past I would not describe them as being worked up about it.

104.  What word would you use?

  (Mr Hoon) I would say that they are determined, as we are, to find an appropriate mechanism. They, as we, recognise that it is crucial that they should be involved but we have got to find the right way of delivering the commitment made by all 15 Member States at Helsinki. In a sense this is a technical matter because we have got to find the right mechanism for involvement consistent, as Richard said, with the precise constitutional arrangements of the European Union. I am absolutely confident that we will do that.

105.  We obviously have a perception difference on quite a number of issues.

  (Mr Hoon) Clearly if you would like to report to me your meetings with my defence counterparts—

  Chairman: If you do likewise in return. I will take you up on that, Secretary of State.

106.  I declare an interest here as a Member of the Parliamentary Assembly for the WEU. There is a lot of concern about the ongoing role not only of the WEU itself but of the parliamentary scrutiny of ESDI and how that will be managed. As of yet there is no clear policy. There are some contradictions over Article IV and countries having to sign up to different aspects of this. One, how are you going to overcome problems on Article IV of the Brussels Treaty? Two, how are you going to guarantee proper parliamentary scrutiny? Three, is there an ongoing role for the WEU at the end of this year?

  (Mr Hoon) One of the first things that I think it is important to emphasise is the way in which the WEU itself has adapted over time. The idea that this is a fixed body that has always had the same functions and responsibilities is simply not the case. As you will know the WEU was actually founded before NATO and was adapted to take advantage of the situation that was created after NATO. Indeed, in the course of its existence, I suppose most recently in 1984, it has adapted again. I can see the possibility of further change for parts of what it does. The essential premise in order to avoid the plethora of committees and organisations that we referred to earlier is that the essential functions in the WEU in a sense would be folded into the European Union to avoid this kind of unnecessary duplication that might otherwise arise. There are still some discussions that we have to have about what parts of the institutional make-up of the WEU would continue after that process. I suspect that the most sensitive area is the question of the Western European Union Assembly. All I can say is that no decisions have been taken yet about its future. I am sure we will want to listen to the views of Members of the Assembly as to how they see its future but, as of yet, we have yet to reach any specific conclusions.

107.  So where in the European context would be the parliamentary scrutiny? It cannot be the European Parliament.

  (Mr Hoon) No, although the European Parliament clearly has a responsibility in relation to Common and Foreign Security Policy, it can clearly have debates, it can clearly have debates about European defence, but we would not expect to see the European Parliament reaching specific conclusions. Clearly under the structure and the constitution that has been established they would not have a formal constitutional role but then, in a sense, neither does the Assembly. These are consultative processes. We emphasise, and continue to emphasise, the role of individual nations in making decisions as to whether, for example, to deploy forces and I would be entirely content, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, that the scrutiny of that decision will continue to rest firmly in Parliament. That is the position as of today and I would not expect you or any other Member of Parliament to resist that.

108.  No, not for the UK but the overall umbrella organisation that will be looking after this. Are you saying basically that it will be heads of government, will it be a new Commission if there is going to be no pan-European Parliamentary Assembly?

  (Mr Hoon) I did not say that. In fact, I said the opposite.

109.  What are the Government saying?

  (Mr Hoon) We have not reached a decision on that. This is something that we will continue to look at because it is one of those implications of the decision, in a sense, of folding the WEU's functions into the European Union that we would still need to consider. As I have said, I am perfectly willing to listen to arguments that say the Assembly should continue, it should still continue to have a useful function, but I think we need to look precisely at what its role has been in the past, what it has achieved and whether that kind of scrutiny, which I recognise is essential in democracies, cannot be, and is not, carried out through domestic parliaments. Frankly, if it came to a debate between whether effective parliamentary scrutiny of those kinds of decisions was exercised through Parliament here or better through the Assembly, I am pretty clear as to what most Members of Parliament would respond.

110.  You are talking about individual commitments of a country to it. I am talking about an overall view of what this organisation is going to be doing. There are some members who made it quite clear to your predecessor, and now Secretary-General, on Monday that some countries will not sign up to this without some sort of parliamentary overview.

  (Mr Hoon) That is clearly a factor that we will take into account in determining—

111.  Your colleague looks surprised. You should have been at the meeting.

  (Mr Hoon) It is something that we will take into account in assessing what would be the future—

112.  Your predecessor was at the meeting.

  (Mr Hatfield) Perhaps I could ask you what you are asking should be over-viewed because most of this is inter-governmental. I am not quite clear what it is you are referring to.

113.  So is the WEU at the present time, so is NATO. NATO has a parliamentary assembly, somewhat of a eunuch organisation but nevertheless they have one, and there is some semblance of parliamentarians being involved on a pan-European basis.

  (Mr Hoon) You are pushing at a door that is not closed, let me make it clear. If you and your colleagues in the Assembly want to set out a continuing role and function for the Assembly I am perfectly willing to listen to that and to consider that, if necessary, could be something that the British Government would decide was acceptable. You have got to be clear as to what it is you see to be the continuing role of the Assembly.

  Chairman: Thank you. Mr Hancock is clearly building up a great deal of support amongst Members of the North Atlantic Assembly, one on either side of him. Having accused us of being eunuchs, or participating in a eunuch-like organisation, I move away from him to a Member of that eunuch organisation, Mr Harry Cohen.

114.  Firstly, can I ask the Secretary of State about the national missile defence and how that applies within the European set-up? I know that he was in Washington recently and I saw a report that said he wanted to build a bridge between the United States and Europe over this issue. What does that mean in terms of European defence?

  (Mr Hoon) I am perfectly willing to talk about national missile defence although, for the moment, it has no European significance in the sense that this may be, and is not yet, a policy which the United States administration decides to adopt. There is some legal requirement on them to do so but it is not yet a commitment of the United States. It is a matter that the President still has to resolve upon. What I would say is this: in the decisions that will be taken in Washington I believe that it is very important that European allies should be consulted and should have the opportunity of setting out their views and I have welcomed the response of the US Defence Secretary, Bill Cohen, most recently at Munich but equally in Brussels shortly before Christmas, to allow that sort of debate to develop amongst European allies. I think it is very important that the US is clear about the reaction of its allies in the Alliance to this important development. For the moment this is a peculiarly and particularly American policy.

  Chairman: Perhaps at some appropriate date we could invite you to comment on that. Mr Gapes.

  Mr Gapes: I think this is the last question you will be relieved to hear.

  Chairman: Almost.

115.  The last one from me.

  (Mr Hoon) I am enjoying myself so much.

116.  Getting back to the Finnish Presidency document again, paragraph 15 claims that "Encouraging progress has been made towards the restructuring of European defence industries, which constitutes an important step forward and contributes to strengthening the European industrial and technological basis."[4] Is not the reality that this restructuring of defence industries is in many cases a trans-Atlantic relationship? Many of the companies in Europe have got partners across the Atlantic, many of the major contracts are competitive bids between companies in Europe linked to North American ones against others doing the same. How can we see this developing of defence restructuring assisting ESDI? Is it still realistic to see it in those terms or, in fact, is it going to require other changes to bring that about?

  (Mr Hoon) I do not entirely accept your premise. I do not accept that there is an inevitability about trans-Atlantic integration although clearly there are elements of that already in the way in which industry has restructured. That will be part of it. Equally, there are some very important developments on the continent that we have to have regard to as there is a degree of consolidation and restructuring there. From the point of view of a Defence Minister who has to purchase on behalf of the taxpayer significant items of defence equipment, one of the crucial considerations for me will be to maintain competition. Whilst we tend to concentrate on the very biggest defence procurement programmes, the reality is that we are engaged in a very significant procurement of some fairly modest items from time

  ad hoc co-operation. What you find is that different companies are coming together for particular purposes, they are pooling their strengths in different technologies and are bidding for contracts on both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere in the world without necessarily having to enter into formal company mergers that will last for all time. Indeed, certainly I think you are seeing a process of consolidation but at the same time some arrangements to actually cut across formal company lines because, in fact, in putting together bids for particular programmes it is often better and more flexible to try to see ways in which they can work together notwithstanding the formal company structure.

117.  Thank you. The French will be assuming responsibility for the EU and WEU after June culminating in the Nice Summit in December. Do you think we will have a clearer idea of the French agenda at the end of that period of the Presidency?

  (Mr Hoon) As you know better than I, Chairman, the agenda of the European Union is fixed by its members and not by any particular Member State. There may be different emphases that different Presidencies place but the determination of what is on the agenda is a matter that is agreed collectively.

118.  We will put our bid in now to your diary, Secretary of State, so you can come and talk to us either just before or just after, preferably before, the Nice Summit and perhaps you can elaborate further.

  (Mr Hoon) As ever, I will look forward to it.

119.  Thank you. That was really very interesting and very helpful. There are some follow up questions that we would like to ask and if there is further documentation perhaps you could identify it.

  (Mr Hoon) I thought for a moment you were going to suggest I should come back next week.

  Chairman: As your Mr Barton

[5] comes very regularly to our meetings we do feel that you are here indirectly if not directly. Thank you very much.

4   p 24. Back

5   MoD Parliamentary Clerk. Back