THE Government fully support present moves within the European Union towards the introduction of greater transparency and openness in the institutions and business of the Union. Page 70 of Dick Spring's White Paper on Foreign Policy.
Isn't that comforting, even if it is spoilt a bit by the sentence immediately following "This reflects the importance which the Government attach to greater openness at the national level"? But there is a little troubling question about this, transparency and openness stuff in Europe and, Dick Spring's commitment to all of that. And the question arises in connection with the following.
The Maastricht Treaty of February 1992 contained a declaration on the rights to access to information concerning the workings of the institutions of the European Union. It stated "The conference considers that transparency of the decision making process strengthens the democratic nature of the institutions and the public's confidence in the administration. The conference accordingly recommends that the Commission submit to the Council [of Ministers] no later than 1993 a report on measures to improve the public access to information available to the institutions."
On December 6th, 1993, the commission and the council approved a code of conduct on public access to council and commission documents. This stated, inter alia, "The Public will have the widest possible access to documents held by the commission and the council". It went on to state that the commission and council "may" refuse's access to documents "in order to protect the institution's interest in the confidentiality of its proceedings".
In early 1994 John Carvel of the Guardian newspaper applied to the council for access to the minutes, the attendance, the voting records and the decisions of two meetings of the Council of Ministers in late 1993. He was given a copy of the documents related to the first of these council meetings, but refused it in relation to the second, on the grounds that the documents in question "directly refer to the deliberations of the council and cannot under its Rules of Procedure be disclosed". He was later informed that the provision of the documents in relation to the first of these council meetings was an administrative error.
Mr Carvel made an application under the Rules of Procedure and, eventually, the council replied on May 17th, 1994, stating "The council takes the view that access to these documents cannot be allowed since they refer directly to the deliberations of the council and its preparatory instances. If it did allow access the council would fail to protect the confidentiality of its proceedings".
Mr Carvel then brought a case to the European Court of First Instance against the council of the European Union. On October 19th last the court found that the council's refusal to grant access to the documents concerned was illegal because it failed to balance "the interests of citizens in gaining access to its documents against any interest of its own in maintaining the confidentiality of its deliberations".
NOW the same Mr Spring, who last week in his White Paper sought to assure us that he is all in favour of this transparent stuff, was part of the illegal decision by the council to refuse access to the documents which the Guardian newspaper sought.
It might be thought that the decision to deny transparency was taken not by Dick Spring but by the Council of Ministers as a whole, and he should not be blamed for a decision that he may have opposed. That excuse won't do in the circumstances.
Immediately after the Council of Ministers decided on May 17th, 1994, not to allow access to" the documents which the Guardian sought, two" members of the council the Danish and the Dutch foreign ministers made it clear that they opposed the decision and that in their view the decision was illegal.
They did more than that. Their governments then went on to support the claim in the European Court of John Carvel and the Guardian by joining the suit against the council of which they, of course, were and are members. They did so in the interests of transparency. Dick Spring did none of these things, although clearly it was open to him to do so.
There is no other issue concerning foreign policy of such importance than that related to the transparency of the operations of the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers is by far the most powerful institution of the European Union. It, and not the European Parliament, is the legislative body of the Union. It makes the laws that bind the states and citizens of the European Union. And yet, uniquely for a legislative body, it operates entirely in secret.
The significance of this is that there is therefore no means of knowing how our representatives vote on hugely important legislative matters that come before the council. This means in turn that no accountability of any sort can operate with regard to the single most important institution of the European Union and, arguably, the single most important institution within the Union as a whole, including all the national governments.
Our democracy has broken down in this one hugely important respect. Decisions of enormous consequences are being taken by a body that operates in secret and which is responsible to nobody. And not only that but, if the council were to have its way, there would be no access to the minutes of its meetings which record the decisions it takes.
IN a White Paper replete with banalities and waffle "It [the EU] is a union which seeks to cherish the interests of all its regions and, people", "European integration is not and should not be expected to be a panacea for all ills", "Unemployment blights people's lives and hopes and wastes our most precious resource, our people's skills and abilities" this crucial issue of democracy within the European Union is not addressed at all.
There are a few anodyne references to the necessity for the European Union remaining "close to the citizen" and functioning "in a transparent way so that its processes and decisions are explained and understood clearly by the people". Nothing about the people having control over what the Union is doing.
The Council of Ministers does not want its deliberations becoming public because this would subvert its procedures. Too right it would subvert its procedures. It would mean that ministers on the council would have to be accountable to their national parliaments and electorates for the decisions they took on the council and for how they voted. That, by far, is the most important "reform" we must institute in the conduct of our foreign policy, and it is no surprise that our Foreign Minister should seek to fudge it.
Almost everything else is hot air.