You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Committee Publications > All Select Committee Publications > Commons Select Committees > European Scrutiny > European Scrutiny

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 1185-i

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

 

 

The CBI and European Scrutiny

 

 

Wednesday 20 October 2004

MR DIGBY JONES and MS SUSANNAH HAAN

Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 34

 

 

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.

This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.

 

2.

Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.

 

3.

Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.

 

4.

Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.

 


Oral Evidence

Taken before the European Scrutiny Committee

on Wednesday 20 October 2004

Members present

Mr Jimmy Hood, in the Chair

Mr William Cash

Mr Michael Connarty

Mr Wayne David

Jim Dobbin

Mr David Heathcoat-Amory

Mr Bill Tynan

________________

Witnesses: Mr Digby Jones, Director-General, and Ms Susannah Haan, Senior Legal Adviser, Confederation of British Industry, examined.

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 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-grabbling language, such as you have employed, is used. I, for example, would not suggest for one moment that the CBI is burying its 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 rant 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 say is it not the problem, and I find this 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, because they have the impression, and it 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 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 beer (?) 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 Spyron 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.

Q20 Jim Dobbin: I just wanted to clarify your position.

Mr Jones: We are tooled up for it.

Q21 Jim Dobbin: That brings me to my next question. If that is the situation - and you look as if you have got ample support there - it tells me that as legislation is going through the European Parliament there may well be opportunities for the CBI to come to us at an early stage. The follow-on to that is that you said in your press release that the CBI "has few opportunities to lobby Westminster at a stage that might influence the outcome", and the point I am making is that your set-up seems to contradict that. I am a simple Member of Parliament but my pensioners know when there are issues coming through here because they come and see me; my disabled people know when there is legislation coming through and my farmers know when to come down here. I am just wondering why ----

Mr Jones: Good point. Did you want to say something?

Ms Haan: Yes, I think the problem for us is that it is difficult to find out what this Committee is doing when and, therefore, the appropriate times for when you are scrutinising particular documents and, therefore, when we should come and talk to you specifically. In general, yes, of course, we have a list of issues - current concerns and future concerns - on what is going on in Europe, and we are dealing with it constantly, and sending off, for example, briefing notes to MEPs or whatever. The briefing notes to MEPs are pretty much on dossiers that are already going through. If you are talking about some of the earlier documentation or getting an earlier idea of the programme coming up, I think it is harder for us and for the business community from the outside to know what you are doing and when, and whether we ----

Q22 Mr Cash: I do not think so ----

Mr Jones: Could I just ask you for some advice, please? We got round members, knowing I was appearing here today - those people I talked about - and said, "What is your view?" so that I do not just talk about what Digby thinks I talk about what the CBI thinks. I had one reaction which I do not know is true, so I would like you to tell me whether this is true. "Under normal circumstances the European Scrutiny Committee meets in private and does not circulate a programme of the documents it will be discussing to outside interest groups. As such, it makes it hard to keep a track of up-coming business and to work out when and if any papers need to be sent in." I do not know whether that is true or not. If it is, I would say "Help me."

Chairman: (a) we meet in private and (b) we just cannot circulate interest groups. I would imagine that the CBI, as a group, has an interest in representing a lot of those interest groups in watching what is happening here. How we can improve that flow of information we will certainly be prepared to look at.

Q23 Mr Cash: Chairman, if I may, there is a procedural problem, here, and that is this: the procedures are there, they are made out and they go according to a strict chronology: they go from the Commission and there is circulation of documents and then they come to us. The point I wanted to get across to Mr Jones and Ms Haan is that if you were to have studied the procedures in a manner which enabled - and you can do this by dialogue - you to dovetail with us at the right time, that could be solved.

Mr Jones: I would welcome that

Mr Cash: It is not our fault; the procedures are there as a matter of public record, it is just that you have not made them available to yourselves.

Q24 Mr David: Could I just add on this point, because I think it is a very important point, I am sure the Chair would be open to representations on issues of concern, frankly, at any time, if you had simply an inkling of something being put forward in Brussels. You could make representations in one form or another and flag the issue up at the earliest possible stage. The other point I would make is that we do scrutinise every year the European Commission work programme. In fact, that is due to happen in the next few weeks. Obviously, by its very definition, that is the programme of the Commission's work over the next twelve months. That is available and you could make representations to us on that.

Mr Jones: I think we could do more there and I am happy to work on that. Could I say that does not solve the other point I raised in my introduction about the fact that too many MPs will still, therefore, think "Well, it's all your job. We will leave it with you." How do we assure ourselves that the average MP in Westminster as opposed to the Members of this Committee have those European issues at the front of their minds? What do you do to make it happen? I do not know the answer to that.

Q25 Chairman: That is a fair point to make. I have to tell you that we are constantly discussing how we do that, not just inside Parliament, because the reason we are here today is to respond to perceptions outside of parliament as well. How MPs inside the House react to European issues is an issue. I have been on this Committee for 17 years and it used to be, by the way - and I know I am giving evidence on the record - that to be on this Committee you had to be Shanghaied on to it. You would wake up in the morning and they would say, "You must have had a pint last night, you are on the European Legislation Committee", because it was not, and still is not, sexy. Thankfully, Europe is now fairly well up the agenda and hopefully the political process and the political classes, instead of throwing brickbats at one another, are trying to grapple with the real issue, and the real issue is how do you deal with legislation, and open it up to the people affected by it? How are we, the legislators, consulting with and representing the people we are here to represent? It is how we dovetail that in. I will not get too carried away by this because I went to the Brussels Chamber of Commerce to speak at a lunch just a few weeks ago, and it is not that industry is not willing to get involved it is about the facilities and, on occasion, it is how we do that. I want to open that debate up, and I do not want to score points to and fro ----

Mr Jones: We are in violent agreement on that.

Q26 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: One of your case studies about what has gone wrong to the Modernisation Committee is about the European Court of Justice, which was debated during the Convention on the Future of Europe and is entrenched now in the Constitution. You complained that this was not properly debated and you had no input. I have to point out that I wrote to you (I was a Member of the Committee) on 9 May 2002, pointing out that I was on it and was very willing to, at least, listen to the CBI, and I did not think you would be properly represented by Unisay (?) which is your European body, which gave a very sort of general speech saying it, basically, welcomed everything. I have to say that you did reply and you said I would be contacted by the CBI, but nothing ever happened, either in Brussels or here; I received no documentation and no suggestions. So, frankly, I think the CBI were asleep on the job during that whole Convention exercise. I must just finish this, because I tried to contact you, you never came back to me, except in a written form, and that did not include any information which I had requested in my letter. I just felt that the CBI was uninterested, so I think it is a little bit curious that you should now say that we are "asleep on the job". I think it is better if we declare a draw on this, and my question to you is a slightly different one.

Mr Jones: Before you move on, I am not going to accept a draw until I have answered that. I am not "asleep on the job"; if I get very active with other members of the British representation on that committee and choose not to talk to you that is not me being "asleep on the job". I had detailed conversations with Peter Hain about it, I had detailed conversations with Gisela Stuart about it and I just chose not to talk to you about it. That is not being "asleep on the job" that is just making a value judgment of where I apply my time. If you wish to tell me I am asleep on the job when I have been doing my job but choosing, actually, who I talk to - I thought choosing was the hallmark of a free society. I will call a draw.

The Committee suspended from 3.39 pm to 4.00 pm for a division in the House

Chairman: I understand Mr Heathcoat-Amory wants to come back.

Mr Heathcoat-Amory: We have established that Mr Jones makes whinging complaints about not having MPs listen to him, but when one does write to him offering to be briefed he writes a misleading letter saying that someone will contact me when he had no intention of doing so. Is this a professional or courteous way for the CBI to deal, even with its critics, let alone its friends? I used to have considerable regard for Mr Jones but that has entirely evaporated and I regard his arrogance as absolutely unacceptable in front of a Select Committee which is trying to do some good. In the interests of good government, let us try and put these personal matters behind us. I would like to press him on the Constitution, since it was the Constitution that I was trying to influence. I was trying to pursue a deregulatory agenda, which I took to be the CBI policy, but I was obviously wrong about that. Would Mr Jones comment on this: that under the Constitution which is about to be signed the problem is bound to get worse because there are over 60 new areas subject to majority voting, the powers of the Union will go into new areas, many of which affect business, and so any problem we have got now is going to escalate. How can we get a structured relationship between the CBI and, perhaps, this Committee so that we can avoid these problems in future? We have talked around that but I would just like to get to the bottom of this, about how we can actually get an agenda, perhaps, to the CBI and, on a regular basis, get back comments so that we can try and help British business in world markets?

Q27 Chairman: Before inviting Mr Jones to respond can I say that once he responds I am moving on to Mr Wayne David's question.

Mr Jones: In answer to your first question, I do not think it is courteous of me to not follow up on a reply to a letter that says "I will follow up" and it is not the professional standard that I would set in an office that we did not have the failsafe check system in place that diarised it forward, or if we did - and I know that we have actually - that that one slipped through the net. So I would say I am very sorry to you for not complying with the standards of the office administration system of which I would normally be proud. So I do apologise to you for that. Secondly, I have every right in the world to allocate very scarce resources in the CBI to where I wish to converse and how I wish to lobby and who I wish to discuss with. That is, I hope, part of a free society. On the situation that you were discussing that you raised with me, I obviously thought we were talking to that group through other members and colleagues of yours. I would not personally offend you on that, and if you took that as a personal affront I do apologise because that is not true. If, on the other hand, you took it as a fact that, for some reason, I should talk to everybody on a committee, I have not got the time. But I should not have written to you and said "I am going to". So I am sorry for that. On the Constitution bit, you are absolutely right, there are going to be loads and loads of situations where we are going to have great frustrations with the Constitution going forward - of course we are - because the Constitution has got to work up for an electorate or a constituency of 450 million people, and we are just one vested interest. I would like to suggest that, possibly, offline this group and my European committee could have a regular standing meeting where we could reveal on both sides where we have got our problems and where we have not. It might actually, also, ensure that we do not have this hiatus in future.

Q28 Mr David: Could I say I think that is a very positive suggestion. I am sure our Committee will consider that favourably. My question is, to take us on a little bit, about your relationship with the European Commission. People often say to us that they have found the Commission quite an open organisation and quite perceptive. How do you find it and how do you try to put the collective view of British business to the European Commission?

Mr Jones: I, personally, have very regular meetings with individual commissioners, usually, I would say, the same half-dozen on a regular basis rather than all of them not so regularly. They are the ones that you would imagine would be the ones that have subjects which affect wealth-creation in Britain. I have found them very accessible and I have found them very well informed. If there has been a problem in the past it is that they do not like criticism very much - clearly not everybody does anyway. They also have a bureaucracy behind them which I know is necessary and it filters through a lot of stuff, but it does mean that sometimes it is very difficult to get the message in the same form to them. I am very hopeful of the new Commission being far more reformist-minded in Europe; I am very hopeful that we will get a Brussels that stops marching valiantly towards 1970 and that it does understand that 450 million people living in peace - which is a fabulous achievement for this group of nations - really have got to take on India, China, America and Japan and not just each other. I am very hopeful that we can have a very meaningful conversation and dialogue with them going forward. I guess it will be with the same half-dozen departments, of course it will, because they are the ones that matter, but we have always had very good relations with the top of the Commission. Something Mr Heathcoat-Amory said will link into this and that is the reference to Unisay. One of the problems with Unisay, and it is a huge frustration for us, is that we of course have a different workplace environment with a small "g" governance to any other country in Europe; we do not have a statutorily recognised social partnership - thank heavens for that. I am a fierce opponent of any form of social partnership that would have any place in the law making of a country. However, it does mean, because we do not, that Unisay is trying very hard to accommodate one sort of way of achieving resolution of law-making with one of its biggest members - in fact, I think we nearly are its biggest member - working down a completely different system back home. Similarly, we have a culture, in lobbying, where I hope we are polite and I hope we are constructive but we are not inside any tent; we are fiercely independent of any party politics and we are fiercely independent of any other lobby group. That is not the same with some of the other employer organisations in Unisay where, even if they are not statutorily inside the tent, they would not dream of lobbying in the same upfront way that we would. So Unisay often has its message diluted because it is trying to achieve something with 25 going in the same direction. I share your concern, actually, Mr Heathcoat-Amory, on how you make a business voice effective when you are being asked to consult on issues where there are such disparate systems in place for getting to an answer. We could be far more punchy in Unisay than we are. I have often heard this in Brussels from Unisay, "We can't say this, it might upset the Commission." Again, if you are polite and constructive why should you not? If somebody ever said to me, "You can't say this because it upsets politicians in Britain", I would say, again, "As long as you are doing it the right way that is part of what we are here for." We are not here to say yes to politicians, and I think society understands that of the CBI, whereas in Unisay that is a bit of a problem because that is not the way they do it. The Commission, then, to follow your question, Mr David, does not actually like that criticism very much because it is not used to it, whereas here we have that environment every day.

Q29 Mr Connarty: Getting down to business - we have got our grievances and we have aired them - it is clearly in our interests and yours that we put out the right information that can be used by businesses. What we need to find out is how we could produce different material if the material which is available now is not giving the signals that you require. Does somebody in the CBI actually read this Committee's reports? That is where the material, for example, that you talked about goes into the public domain signalling up: "There is an issue on the agenda and it is going to come back in a more structured fashion when, maybe, we will take it into our debate." Does somebody read it? Are businesses made aware? When I have spoken to industry Parliament trusts it appears that businesses do not seem to realise they should be going down, as Mr Dobbin said, to their MP, to their office and to the surgery to say, "I have just read this thing from the CBI saying this has been discussed, coming from Europe. I think you should raise it within the House and stop it, slow it, change it." Does anybody do that?

Mr Jones: The first point is that more than one would read it at the CBI. Firstly, everything would be read by the people involved in that European system that I mentioned - not the members so much but the staff. Secondly, if it was a subject matter on a particular sector then the specialist there would read it too; so with financial services Susannah herself would probably read it and if it was on the labour market then somebody else would. So those two people, experts in their field, in the CBI would definitely read it. Where we would not do it in the same way as you might expect - and maybe we should look at this differently - is that I would then, in my weekly "What we have been up to in the week" which goes to every single member, not be putting that in detail in that. The European committee would get it and if one of us was making a speech or talking to members or on a visit we would be briefed and we would mention it. So it would get to a limited business audience, I can promise you that. Would it get to a general business audience? No, and maybe it should. I think Susannah wanted to say something.

Ms Haan: I think you have probably said what I was going to say, in the sense that on specific policy areas it will go down to the relevant person.

Q30 Mr Connarty: Does anybody actually go through the reports and say "We looked at that business last week or the week before ..."?

Mr Jones: They go through the reports, but internally.

Q31 Mr Cash: Could I ask a procedural question? Perhaps I should address this to Susannah but, maybe, Mr Digby Jones would like to answer this. Do you know what I mean by "scrutiny reserve"?

Mr Jones: I do not.

Ms Haan: I half do.

Chairman: Ministers half do, as well. "Scrutiny reserve" means we are holding something back and we do not want the Minister to vote on it before we have scrutinised it properly. Ministers ignore it sometimes.

Q32 Mr Cash: May I say, with great respect to you, as Chairman, it is not a question of whether they want to, they are not allowed to agree in the Council of Ministers to proposals once our Committee has said that this matter should be debated. I think this is, in many respects, the centre of gravity of the problem which has arisen between the CBI and us. If you had presented evidence to us or alerted us to the fact that there was a serious problem in relation to a particular directive or regulation, or whatever, or piece of legislation, then we would be alerted to it and we would be able to call on evidence from you and it could be written evidence which would then be in the system, and you would know that according to the Standing Orders of this sovereign Parliament the Minister is not allowed - even though very occasionally they dare to go beyond it - to agree to that in the Council of Ministers. So you would effectively be coming in on the slipstream of a blocking process within which you would be able to sort out matters in Whitehall. Just going off to see a Minister or seeing a member of the Commission, having a chat and saying "We don't like this" will get you nowhere unless there is a threat. That is what it boils down to. So I would suggest that you might improve your knowledge of the procedures in order to be able to be sure that you get in on the act at the right time, which is what you were accusing us of.

Mr Jones: Yes.

Chairman: Whilst Mr Cash is almost right he is not right when he says a Minister is absolutely obliged and cannot override a scrutiny reserve. The rules tells them that if they do so they are in trouble with the Committee, which is fair enough, but to say they cannot is not quite right.

Mr Cash: Fair enough.

Q33 Chairman: In fairness, can I just say, in closing this session, thank you for coming. I have to tell you I have found it very useful. Indeed, dare I say, I have enjoyed it, and it is not often we say that. I hope you have found it useful if not enjoyable as well. I think something positive has come from it, as maybe even you can have discussions with our staff about how we can improve on getting information to-ing and fro-ing. If there is anything that we can do to get you involved at early stages or get your representations in we would be delighted, and we would welcome it. In fact, wherever we can we are encouraging it, so you are pushing at an open door. We see our role - and I must underline this, coming from a Labour Member of Parliament who is Chair of this Scrutiny Committee - as not to represent our Government but to scrutinise the Government and its executive in what it does in the name of Parliament. We are very much representing Parliament in this Committee, and that is so important. We very rarely, if ever, go down party lines when we are talking about scrutiny. It is made easier for us because we do not make decisions on the merits - ie, is it a good thing or a bad thing - but if it is legally applicable and important and we decide it needs further scrutiny, then that is the decision we take. Does Parliament need to look at it more and scrutinise it more and get to know more about it before a decision is taken? That is where you would want to come in, as part of our process.

Mr Jones: Can I thank you very much, Chairman, and can I thank all of you for giving us the time. I have learned a lot and I have also thoroughly enjoyed it. I think we could definitely get a lot of our businesses better engaged with you, and I will work hard to do that.

Q34 Chairman: Thank you very much and I look forward to seeing you sometime in the not-too-distant future.

Mr Jones: Certainly.