Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MR DIGBY
JONES AND
MS SUSANNAH
HAAN
20 OCTOBER 2004
Q1 Chairman: Mr Digby
Jones, welcome. It is good to have the opportunity to have this
little chat, brought about by an earlier comment attributed to
you in which you were critical of how Parliament scrutinises European
legislation. I did not take it personally at the time and I am
sure it was a general criticism and not one of the Scrutiny Committee
because the Scrutiny Committee does do a fair job on scrutiny.
Could you enlarge on exactly what your criticism is of the way
the House currently scrutinises European legislation?
Mr Jones: Thank
you very much, indeed, all of you, for giving me the chance to
come and talk with you. As you know, Chairman, both in my press
release and in the interview afterwards, I did not refer to the
words "this Committee"; my exact words were that "MPs
are asleep on the job" and that UK Parliament is failing
to scrutinise. So the work of this Committee I did not comment
on, one way or the other. I have to say, which is the CBI view,
this Committee does the best it can do in the circumstances. However,
the system itself in which this Committee works, we think, does
have shortfalls. A great deal of frustration is felt among businesses
about the fait accompli type of attitude that seems to
be met when they discuss matters European with their elected representatives
in Westminster. Often we hear words like: "Oh well, it's
all Brussels, you know", or "Too late" or "Go
and complain in Brussels, it is nothing to do with us." When
I discuss these matters that affect business, these amazingly
wealth-debilitating regulatory measures that come out of Brussels
that harm wealth-creation in other parts of Europe as well, so
many countries—not all of them but some countries—do
tend to have a system domestically that gets elected representatives
in their home countries on the case more generally and in greater
detail more early. So there is little opportunity for outside
interest groups to make timely representation at a Westminster
level. We think there is quite a bit of poor signposting and that
outside groups should be warned earlier on Commission proposals,
and UK Parliament itself does not seem to be that involved until,
again, it is too late. Whilst this Committee, almost by the nature
of its very existence, is clearly interested and responsible,
and makes it its business, I guess so many of your colleagues
in the House of Commons, frankly, do not make it their interest,
do not make it their business and, probably, back in their constituencies
seek the refuge of: "Well, this is Brussels, not us."
We do feel that since over two-thirds of the legislation that
affects British business—let alone the individuals who work
in it—now comes out of Brussels in this country, and we
think the democratically elected representatives of the British
people here should make it their business—all of them and
not just the hardworking members of this Committee—to get
more involved and more early. So often we hear from Cabinet Ministers
that the UK Government cannot do much about this, "It's Brussels,
you know". So it is not a party political point and, indeed,
it is not even a level of Parliament point, it is about everybody.
We see a considerable disjoint and a confusing lack of cohesion
of policy between UK MPs and UK MEPs and it frustrates us, again,
where we can have won an argument with the UK Government, to find
that Labour MEPs actually vote against that which the Labour Government
wishes them to. Presumably, they were elected back in the Euro-elections
in their constituencies on a Labour slate, yet there they are
voting against the interests of the Government that bears the
same party political tag. At the same time, we think if something
is not done quickly the situation is very quickly going to get
worse because it is perfectly obvious that more and more legislation
is coming out of Brussels which is having such an effect on the
wealth-creation of this nation. In case you think that that is
just a business lobbyist talking, if it was not for business then
there would not be any tax, and if there is not any tax then there
are not any schools and hospitals. So this is an issue for all
of Britain not just the business community. Thank you very much.
Q2 Chairman: Thank you.
Can I just say, in responding to that, that I am a great believer
that something good always comes from something bad. I am not
saying for a moment that the recent little spat was bad; in fact,
there has been some good come from it and the fact that we are
having this meeting is a positive step towards that good. Maybe
it is time that the CBI, instead of sitting on the periphery criticising,
came and exchanged and brought their views to the Parliamentarians
and to our Committee. We have an open invitation to businesses
to come to us and to lobby us, and any information we can give
and any assistance we can give is here and is open-ended. So maybe
some good has come from that and maybe we will start off a more
positive dialogue between businesses and Parliamentarians.
Mr Jones: I would
like that.
Chairman: Where there
was a grain of truth in the general thing about MPs per se
or Westminster per se, is that maybe it is how we as Parliamentarians,
and how those who report on what Parliamentarians do, have got
something to answer as well. Certainly the minutia of the bread
and butter matters that we deal with is not, as I have often referred
to, a "sexy" subject that appeals to politicians or
to businesses and to those who put press releases out on their
behalf. So maybe there is some good to come from it. I hope that
our exchanges today will be a step forward away from the sidelines
of being insulated in the centre. Dare I say, it is not New Labour
spin that will benefit more from what we do together rather than
what we do separately.
Q3 Mr Cash: Mr Jones,
you and I had an exchange following your unilateral remark that
MPs were "asleep on the job". Forgive me for saying
so, I think it is a bit disingenuous to suggest there is no implication
as regards the European Scrutiny Committee.
Mr Jones: Why?
Q4 Mr Cash: Because, in
fact, in your evidence to the Modernisation Committee, which I
have in front of me—
Mr Jones: And I
have.
Q5 Mr Cash: —you
say that, with respect to the Commission strategy on waste prevention
and recycling, which you give as an example of where things have
gone wrong, "The European Scrutiny Committee considered the
document and concluded" (and I paraphrase) "We are therefore
clearing the document because, in view of certain factors, we
did not think that any further consideration of this subject is
called for at present."
Mr Jones: I do
not think that is you being "asleep on the job", I think
that is you doing your job badly. That is not the same as being
"asleep on the job".
Q6 Mr Cash: I think if
you allege we are doing it badly—
Mr Jones: That
one job.
Q7 Mr Cash: I think the
implication of what you were saying generally suggests that it
was not just "asleep on the job" and you more or less
implied that from the remarks you have just made with regard to
the importance of legislative scrutiny. You will remember—as
I am sure you have checked it out—the article in The
Times I wrote as long ago as 1986, at the time of the Single
European Act. I was a former legal adviser to the CBI in private
practice, not in-house, and I did a lot of work on things across
the board for the CBI and was on most of the industrial panels,
so I know something about how the CBI functions.
Mr Jones: You knew
how it functioned in 1986; I am not too sure that is the same
in 2004.
Q8 Mr Cash: In my time
we used to win all our cases. That is another story. In respect
of this particular remark, which is directed to the European Scrutiny
Committee's activities, my question, which really follows from
what the Chairman said—and I mentioned in my article in
The Times—is: why did the CBI not give evidence in
respect of this at the time? You will acknowledge, I am sure,
that, particularly with regard to questions of technical legislation
and matters affecting business (and we are all in favour of this
and I think we could have agreement about this) if you want to
get the voice of business heard at the right time then you should—since
1985—have developed some system, which I have been advocating,
to be more involved by giving evidence over that extended period
of time to this Committee, instead of just more exclusively to
the European Commission and to the European authorities at Whitehall.
You, effectively, have downgraded the activities of this Parliament
by not participating in the process during the time and taking
the opportunity when it was actually available to you. You can
hardly deny that.
Mr Jones: The first
point is (and I repeat what I said just now in interruption) that
I think there is a distinction between this Committee not being
"asleep on the job" and actually doing something which
we would consider poor. I do not think this Committee has been
"asleep on the job" and I never said you had, but I
do think you have reached some pretty bad decisions in the past.
Secondly, I acknowledge and, indeed, even thank you for the contribution
made to the CBI's work in the 1980s—
Q9 Mr Cash: It was the
1960s and 70s, actually.
Mr Jones: Case
proven, my Lord. The organisation, probably unlike some people's
opinions, has changed and we are a fundamentally different organisation
to what we were when you were involved in it. Indeed, in your
article in The Times I thought some of the adjectives used
to describe us showed that you were not really on the button as
to where we are today. We have, in our business community, those
who would love this Committee to prove that our membership of
the European Union will work, we have those who wish it to prove
it would not and we have those who are undecided—we are
just like society in that way—and business needs a Britain
that can create wealth wherever the legislation that affects that
process comes from.
Q10 Mr Cash: We are completely
agreed about that.
Mr Jones: Thirdly,
I think that we could do much more—and it is your point,
Chairman—in the future, working with this Committee, making
submissions more timely, more early—and, probably, sometimes
at all—than we have in the past. That would also, I hope,
set a better example from us and, indeed, may I say, from you
as well to the people we did think were asleep on the job, which
is other MPs, who probably think that matters European are not
their concern because you are doing it. I have loads of members
who think, "It's not my concern because Digby is doing it."
What we have got to do is make sure that everybody who elects
MPs at Westminster, and those MPs, understand that it is all our
concern because it affects all our lives. As the Chairman says,
if good can come out of this because we sharpen up our act with
you and we can do it better, I really do think we can make a better
contribution than we have. However, I do not want MPs thinking
this is just your responsibility, Mr Cash; I think it is important
they realise it is the responsibility of all elected representatives.
Q11 Mr David: Can I say
it is nice to talk to you in person and not just over the radio!
Mr Jones: I remember
that. It was a Friday afternoon, pouring with rain, I think.
Q12 Mr David: Could I
say, at the outset, that I agree with many of the substantive
points you make about taking Europe, generally, more seriously
and scrutinising more effectively. I have to say, however, I am
rather concerned about one of the comments you made in your introduction
about Members of the European Parliament, for example. I was an
MEP for ten years and one of the things that is not widely appreciated
generally, certainly not by yourself, is that MEPs do not belong
simply to national parties, they are also part of transnational
groupings, and in order to exercise any sort of influence they
not only have to toe the party line, as it were, from London but
they have to take into account the broader workings of the European
groupings, of which they are part. Unless we have got a realisation
of that they will simply fall into the trap, as you appear to
have done, of saying to people, "I am following the party
line from London" or not. Things are not as simple as that
in the European Parliament, as I am sure anybody over there will
tell you. The other point I would make is that as far as MPs are
concerned, yes, you are right, there is a need, I think, for MPs
across the board in Parliament to take Europe more seriously and
to become more actively involved, but I have got to say it does
not help to promote that case when headline-grabbing language,
such as you have employed, is used. I, for example, would not
suggest for one moment that the CBI is burying its head in the
sand on Europe, and I am sure if I did say that I would have got
a headline, but what is clearly the case is that businesses do
need to take Europe much more seriously and not just slag off
Europe right, left and centre when it is convenient to do so but
actually engage in the process. I would like to reiterate, just
to finish off, the point Mr Cash has made, and that is that there
has been ample opportunity in the three-and-a-half years that
I have been a Member of this Committee and in the ten years I
was a Member of the European Parliament for the CBI to make representations
to me. Although I led the Labour Group in the European Parliament
for four years I can honestly say, hand on heart, on not one single
occasion did the CBI ever bother to pick up the 'phone to speak
to me. That says something about your organisation, does it not?
Mr Jones: When
did you stop being the leader of the group in Brussels?
Q13 Mr David: I stepped
down in 1998.
Mr Jones: I became
Director-General on 1 January 2000 and I met Simon Murphy and
now meet Gary Tipley, the current leader, every time I go to Brussels—that
is at least once a quarter—and I do not think there is a
visit to Brussels when I do not engage with MEPs and the Leader
of your group. I cannot comment on what happened with the CBI
under previous stewardship, be it 1998 or, indeed, 1989, but what
I can do is tell you it is a damned sight better now.
Q14 Mr Cash: What about
Westminster, because that is what we are talking about here?
Mr Jones: Point
taken. Can I deal with two other points? One is you talk about
"asleep on the job" being headline-grabbing. If you
used the headline of "head in the sand" you would get
a headline but you would not believe it, but that is because you
do not believe it so you would not use it; I actually believe
MPs have been asleep on the job, which is why I did use it. It
was not, really, to grab the headline (although I am pleased it
did because some good comes out of bad, and we are here) but I
have to tell you I genuinely believe it. I think most MPs in this
country do not have European influence on legislation in the UK
at the forefront of their minds. Given it affects all our lives
so much, I think they should. The third point, which in a way
is the most important point between us, is that I can understand—and
I get involved in this quite a bit in both Brussels and Strasbourg—why
MEPs of all different parties have to make their alliances and,
indeed, that they have a greater effect if they do so. So the
real politik of this I fully understand. I do not think,
probably, you and I communicate that necessity sufficiently to
our respective constituencies back at the ranch; I do not think
I get that idea across to the business community that well; I
do not think MEPs get it across to UK constituents that well.
The bit that I do find frustrating—and I would welcome your
view on this because I do not know the answer to this—is
if you had somebody elected on, shall we say, for example, at
the moment, because they are the Government but it could be the
Conservatives but, at the moment, it is the Labour Party, if you
have a person who goes into a polling booth in the United Kingdom
who puts a cross in a box in a Euro-election against the name
"Labour", I think they believe—in fact, I am pretty
certain they think—that what that person will do in Brussels
is pursue the policy of the Labour Party. Therefore, it is a little
difficult when we lobby and achieve a degree of understanding—sometimes
disagreement but understanding—with an elected government
in Britain that has got that Labour Party in that then, when the
decision and the voting comes up in Brussels, Labour MEPs walk
in rank and file against the interests of their own Government.
I think I am entitled to say "Well, that is not, to me, why
someone put a cross in a box back in Netherwallop at the Euro-elections."
You will tell me, "But the real politik is that I
cannot do it that way". Fine, but I think that is misleading
the electorate in Britain, because that is not why they voted
for you.
Q15 Mr Connarty: To return
to the domestic scene, I was interested to hear about your travels
in Europe with MEPs. You said that somebody said, "Go and
complain to Brussels, it's nothing to do with us." I wrote
it down because I thought that was very significant. You seem
to have said, to qualify that, that you were also referring to
some of your own members. I had, probably, the displeasure of
hearing you at the Scottish CBI dinner when I was with a business
deeply involved in Europe, a chemical industries business, and
you ranted about trade unions and said nothing relevant to them
at all about Europe. I would ask is it not the problem, which
I find when I meet your members, that they do not know how they
should lobby, they do not even know why they should lobby, at
British level. They have the impression, which has not been overcome
by yourself, that they have to go to Brussels to deal with the
Commission and that there is no way that Ministers have an involvement
from this country or that we have an involvement. I have to tell
you, I deeply resented the fact that you said that MPs had been
asleep on the job because everyone in my area knows I am involved
in a European Committee and you were certainly taken by my local
press as meaning me.
Mr Jones: Well,
I deeply resent you actually saying that I stand up in Scotland
and rant at people, because I did not.
Q16 Mr Connarty: Well
you did.
Mr Jones: I actually
know, I was there and I gave it. I actually had a prepared speech,
which I gave, and if I choose to take a view which you disagree
with I do not call that ranting. I had a view to give that night
about trade unionism. I chose not to talk about Europe that night,
I chose not to talk about Scottish issues; I chose to talk about
trade unionism, on which you and I are entitled, in a democracy,
to disagree with each other. Just because it is something you
do not agree with do not call it "ranting".
Q17 Mr Connarty: It did
not teach anybody anything.
Mr Jones: I have
to say I talk to a lot of people about a lot of things. It might
not have taught you but I think it taught some others with more
open minds. What I do agree we have not done, and business has
not done—but, by the way, the TUC is a lobby group and they
do not, and Friends of the Earth is a lobby group and they do
not and I do not think the CBI does, either—is sufficiently
engage with democratically-elected politicians on European matters.
I think we have already agreed with that and we will try harder.
Q18 Mr Cash: Three cheers.
Mr Jones: Thank
you. But what I cannot do, every time I come to Scotland, is just
choose to talk about what you want me to talk about; I will talk
about what we have decided is the issue of the day, on which we
might be wrong and we might be right. On that occasion I chose
not to talk about Europe; next year—you probably will not
be there because you did not approve of it last time—I will
probably talk about something completely different, in my view.
Q19 Jim Dobbin: My questions
are a follow-up to Mr Connarty's. Do you have a department in
the CBI, a member of staff (I expect you have) that concentrates
on European legislation?
Mr Jones: Yes,
at three levels. Firstly, we have a Brussels office which is fully
staffed up, with half-a-dozen full-time people working there.
It has various businesses who are members of the CBI—UK
businesses—that have not got their own offices in Brussels
but actually pay us for facilities such as desks, 'phones and
IT. We have a full-time director in Brussels, called Andrew Moore,
who lives in Brussels, works in Brussels, keeps his ear to the
ground in Brussels and reports to me and to my deputy. The second
level is that we have a senior person, not at director level like
Andrew but one below that, a man called Mark Platt, and he sits
about 20 feet from me and he works and breathes and has his being
in Centre Point here in London, and he spends his whole time on
European policy matters. He, again, reports to the two of us.
At the third level, but not below those two—in fact, in
many ways, above those two because we are responsible to our members
who pay our wages—we have a European Committee, which is
made up only of businesses—no CBI staff—which has
a chairman who is John Weston, of Spirent plc and it comprises
about ten businesses from different sectors, of different sizes,
small and large, from different parts of the UK—even Scotland—and
we have everybody there: Northern Ireland, Wales and the different
regions. They will formulate the policy of the CBI when it comes
to anything European as a major issue. I would not have cleared
something like my comments on the workings of MPs with them but
if we were going to take a view on things such as the Agency Temps
Directive or the Working Time Directive it would go through them
before you heard us say what the CBI view was. I am just thinking
aloud here but it might be quite useful if, probably on an informal
basis, that committee met this Committee. I think that would be
quite useful.
|
