| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
As the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe have made clear in another place and in correspondence, we have consistently been supportive of this work. It rightly does not anticipate a constitutional treaty but is predicated on practical reforms that are possible under current treaties. It also focuses on amending existing arrangements rather than establishing new processes. Indeed, as the committee identified in its report, much of what was set out in the Commission’s communication was happening already at the working level. As the Government stated in their official response to the committee’s report, this useful work will continue to be taken forward by the German presidency and the Commission, and we will continue to support it fully. That does not and will not usher in the constitution by covert means—a point which I think has been put to me; I am clear on that—and there is no change on the referendum position.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, made several points here. I do not believe either that there is a case for superseding our own foreign policy objectives. Were foreign policy always to be the outcome of long periods of gestation, perhaps in theory it might be possible to reach unanimity across a body as diverse as the European Union, but the world does not generally permit that, or at least it happens only occasionally. On most issues, ultimate authority is bound to remain in sovereign state hands for most issues.
Perhaps I may deal with the issues addressed in the report. The call for improved co-operation and coherence in EU external relations must certainly be welcomed, and the Hampton Court agenda focuses on exactly that as well as on effective delivery. I welcome it again today. I also welcome what is said on strategic planning. The Government think it is a valuable proposal. Although not much is said in the concluding statement about the strategic perspective—which suggests to me that there is a good deal more work to do on it—there is a general good will to take it forward. I make that point to the noble Lords, Lord Bowness and Lord Dykes, who specifically raised the problem. There is no need for member states to say much more about the good sense of it because it is so self-evidently sensible to have a strong strategy.
We are agreed about co-operation between the high representative and the Commission. I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that the meetings of chairs of foreign affairs committees is a useful innovation which should be used to its fullest. The Government believe that the high representative should take part in such meetings when he can. But I am keen that this should be a practical observation. I know that Javier Solana has played a vital role in many international negotiations—indeed, I have had the privilege of being present at a number of them—and I would deeply like to see him in Africa, in Kosovo, in parts of Latin America and elsewhere because of the value he can add to such negotiations. So there has to be a practical outcome. My noble friend Lord Harrison made the point that we need to see him but also that he is most effective when he is abroad, a point shared by the noble Lord, Lord Roper.
We believe that co-operation between Council and Commission officials requires closer working relationships but there are already many good examples of it in practice upon which we can draw. We have made it clear that we are in favour of joint papers for discussion. Where such joint papers can be created—and, again, there have been a number of them—they are a reflection of good consensus. Often there are not joint papers because there has not been enough consensus to generate them. One has to be realistic about that.
My noble friend Lord Harrison asked about information exchange. The Government have said—not half-heartedly—that certain distinct roles limit the way in which reports are prepared. The fact that there are functionally distinct roles will on occasions mean there will have to be some degree of separation.
On EU participation in multilateral organisations, there is no difference between the committee and the Government about the importance of the EU preparing well for multinational meetings because the world looks to the EU for as much coherence as can be achieved on such occasions. I also share the view that, although we cannot say a great deal about the euro-zone for obvious reasons—my noble friend Lord Harrison pushed me on this point—certain treaty obligations involve us and require of us a view.
The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, and other noble Lords raised the issue of double-hatting. There is a need for a case-by-case analysis of what will work to the greatest possible effect. Probably no one model would work completely. Whether or not this causes some regret, in my view the prospect for double-hatting in Kosovo is distant; I do not believe it will happen immediately. It is probably several years away because the international community will have to stay in Kosovo for a while and there are different roles and functions to be fulfilled there.
Co-operation between the Commission and the Council is obviously extremely important. This is another area where there has been a good deal of co-operation and where pragmatic judgments have led everyone to conclude that it is worth proceeding in this way. I have absolutely no doubt that we can do so within the framework of existing treaties without having to invent other arrangements. I shall return to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, in more specific detail in due course.
As the Minister also responsible for consular assistance, I am wholly with the noble Lord, Lord Roper, on his analysis of the issue. I say to my noble friend Lord Harrison that I am afraid it requires that we take our responsibilities under treaties in a way that does not readily permit the involvement of the Commission. I can say that, from some of the tougher areas of consular work, I would not want us to be held up by having to develop other kinds of arrangements when the task is helping British citizens who are in significant difficulty abroad. We can act as other countries act on behalf of their citizens.
There has been a good deal of sharing, none the less. I saw it in the evacuation from Beirut, a huge operation by any standards. I was always delighted when we could achieve that. Sub-Committee C mentions that premises and support services should be shared on a case-by-case basis, as has been put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and my noble friend Lord Harrison, and there are many examples of that working. I do not think there will be a lot of new build of joint embassies and facilities from the current financial perspective, much as I might wish it to be otherwise. There are also occasions when people are not desperately keen to do this because various countries have different views about the level of security, for example, or about the way they want to present themselves through their missions. We all have to make our judgments on that. Occasionally, though, sharing buildings, security or basic facilities can improve the security of our missions when they are serving abroad. That can make it a much easier task for those missions to do what we need them to do, without having to be distracted by the needs that unfortunately press in around areas like security.
The staff exchange programme is a good initiative, and we will certainly be closely involved in it. I think all member states have secondees at both the Commission and the Council but, Brussels being Brussels, I am not able to tell your Lordships’ House how many of them there are or where they are. Still, when you go there, you see them. I can tell you about our country, where we do keep the information. We already have secondees from member states—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive me, but why can he not tell us how many secondees there are?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I cannot tell the House because Brussels does not keep the statistics—exactly the reason I gave less than 20 seconds ago. I do not think it has changed in that period. I can tell your Lordships that we had 13 secondees at senior levels in the FCO during our presidency, and we want to continue that pattern.
We will want to take forward, as the noble Lords, Lord Bowness and Lord Roper, have said today, relations with the European and national parliaments. There is a good deal of work to be done, and no lack of enthusiasm about doing that. In our view, commissioners should most certainly make that one of the priorities. If there is to be a meaningful democratic process in any parliament, it must be one where the information provided comes from those people who carry the major responsibilities for the work.
As for public support, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has made a strong case for making sure that people know of the EU’s achievements, many of which he has set out. I agree with him about them. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has suggested that perhaps we have not taken as leading a role as we could. The committee was more generous to us in recognising what we have done, and I appreciate that. I do not believe we are wanting in that area, and if anyone believed that others are much more forward, they would have to give me an account that I could understand of why, despite France and the Netherlands being so forward on this issue, their referendums turned out as they did. Engaging public support is critical for any political institution. We agree with the general force of the argument put forward by the sub-committee.
In this debate the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has led the way in valuing the EU’s work, as have the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and others. I follow in their footsteps for a few moments. The external policies of the EU have seen considerable successes, which have come generally from closer co-ordination, the subject of this debate. In my view they all need to meet a test that I have put to the House before; namely, that we should say, when we do things: does closer co-ordination add value to what we are doing, or does it not? There are pragmatic judgments about that. There is a world role in doing these things well, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. He mentioned trade and soft power, and the noble Lord, Lord Roper, said—and I agree with him—that we can achieve that; it helps weld the pillars together and make more sense of the work overall.
I would like to comment on the common foreign and security policy. Through the EU common positions, one aspect of the CFSP which we are able to say to third states—be it the Zimbabwean regime, the Governments of Iran, Sudan or Belarus—is that all 27 states of the European Union share a common view of their behaviour. Thus our messages, and sometimes the demands we make, carry much greater weight. But the CFSP, as many of your Lordships will know, is more than just a declaratory tool. We currently have nine European security and defence policy missions deployed outside the Union; these include peacekeepers, military observers, police mentors in Bosnia—some of the areas that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, mentioned—work in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. We have border monitors and police mentors in Gaza; we are training the Iraqi Justice Ministry officials. In addition, this year we will see the deployment of two new civilian missions to Kosovo and Afghanistan to focus on rule of law issues.
There is hard evidence that these policies are delivering for the EU, but they are also delivering for the United Kingdom. Those are just as much our objectives—as, indeed, are the EU’s significant external financial instruments. There again, we see how co-operation delivers for both the EU and the UK. To an extent, all these instruments do what it says on the tin. Across the world, they are focused on three core political objectives: to provide stability, security and prosperity in the EU’s neighbourhood; to support sustainable development at an international level; and to promote responsible political governance and global stability. Those objectives are why people wish to join an enlarging EU. It drives those values right through the countries that prepare for membership and then join. Enlargement must be one of the most satisfactory outcomes in the progress towards a peaceful continent that probably any of us have seen in our lifetime. I will say no more about enlargement because of time, but I believe that it is fundamental to our objectives.
I will in a moment please or upset the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, with my response to his points. My noble friend Lord Harrison mentioned the need for greater depth in European experience and referred to the Prime Minister’s speech. I think the Prime Minister was making the point that we need balances between our key alliances; Europe has to play a real role in those balances. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, also set out the importance of European roles, aside from, but preferably not in conflict with, the United States.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, is right to remind us of the other institutions in Europe and the need to work closely with them to avoid too much duplication. But it is true that in the Council of Europe—which reaches far further, to 46 states—there are areas in which very real achievements can be had by making sure that that work continues successfully. I am wholly with the noble Baroness on that point.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, will not mind my saying that I feel as though we have been round this circuit more than a few times. I do not accept that there will be a successful Europe which is based only on a set of trading relationships, with no social dimension and no other cohesion involved. It is hard to think of an example in world history that has achieved that. Mostly obligations to one another so that one can live in a civilised way with one another are part of the objective. I hear what the noble Lord says about Mr Barroso and the treaty of Nice, but I think I can summarise the point in the way that Professor Alan Dashwood did in the evidence he gave the committee, when he said that there was no legal impediment to the creation of an external action service. This is a reference to the Commission staff and the Council secretariat working together, often informally, but much more closely and to greater effect. I repeat the point that I have made in answers to the noble Lord before. A formal European external action service, such as the one defined in the constitutional treaty, with a legally defined role, will need a treaty base that it does not currently have. Whatever is said by anyone else, that is our view.
It has been a very important and useful debate. Of course, it would be great, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, says, to have more common policy when, for example, we meet the Russians, but the immediate history of all 27 nations and their relations with Russia in its former Soviet Union mode shows that it will be some time before we will get to that point. It is work in progress, as is evident when you talk to the representatives of those countries.
However we look at it—whether we think that the progress is fast enough or not—this debate has demonstrated that European Union Sub-Committee C has produced an excellent report that focuses on how we can be more effective in some of the areas that are vital to the United Kingdom. They are important for the EU but much more vital for the United Kingdom. We will keep the House informed of developments in that area through regular contact and correspondence with the European Union Select Committee and in the debates that we have among your Lordships.
4.46 pm
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and presence this afternoon. In closing, I underline the fact that the common foreign and security policy and ESDP already exist in the treaties. The Commission’s paper made it clear that it was not reopening the debate on the constitutional treaty and was looking at how to enhance the implementation of policies under the existing treaties. That was how the committee viewed the Commission proposal and the committee was largely supportive of those proposals in that context. I accept that there may well be, as my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever said, practical limits to achieving a common foreign policy in every case, but we should take every opportunity to enhance the prospect of achieving the consensus to which the noble Lord referred where it is possible—and where it is possible to find it we need effective means of implementing and projecting it throughout the world. That is in our interests and the interests of the European Union.
Lastly, I thank all noble Lords for their kind remarks to me personally as chairman of the sub-committee and I wish every success to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and the new sub-committee, as well as its new clerk, Kathryn Colvin.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
- House adjourned at 4.48 pm.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |