Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-79)
23 JUNE 2004
RT HON
DAVID HEATHCOAT-AMORY
MP AND MS
GISELA STUART
MP
Q60 Chairman: You mentioned the attendance
issue at Standing Committees, but if you are a minister appearing
in front of Standing Committees, as we discussed as a committee
earlier on, it can be quite challenging. In some ways you face
the most difficult questioning in principle anywhere in the House
in those committees.
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I think it
is very important to keep that quite intimate committee structure
so that ministers can be pinned down with supplementaries and
it is useful that the committee I am on now, the Scrutiny Committee,
does have a handle in that we have to clear documents under the
scrutiny system and we can refer matters for debate and I would
not wish to lose that. I think this is a fairly inadequate check
because, as Gisela Stuart just said, we are right at the end of
the feeding chain here and even if we do object, governments can
ignore it. Of course, there is the growing problem when the minister
goes to the final negotiations in that it is usually by majority
voting anyway, so the feeling of real influence is not there.
We hope to circumvent that on my committee by cross-examining
the Commission about its annual work programme, but this year
they have declared a measure to tackle violence in the workplace
which I consider to be an obvious breach of subsidiarity, they
showed no contrition about this and in subsequent correspondence
with the commissioner concerned she has not even conceded that
subsidiarity is relevant. Even our attempts to get in right at
the fountain head have so far failed to make the subsidiarity
principle anything more than an empty phrase.
Q61 Chairman: I am just a bit puzzled
by this. Gisela, you said about the package point. You have a
process where you have meetings of the Council of Ministers and
that is the way it works, we go with our negotiating brief, so
do the 14 others, now the 24 others, and you reach a common position.
To unravel that common position is then to start off the whole
negotiating merry-go-round again.
Ms Stuart: You are quite right.
What you are highlighting is a problem we have got across Whitehall
as to "What is Europe?" One solution would be that you
have got a Cabinet post for a Europe minister who would also be
responsible for coordinating the policies across Whitehall which
have got a European dimension. The package I referred to was actually
negotiated by what was MAFF, but at that time we were transferring
part of food to the Department of Health, so you had within Whitehall
a process by which the departments agreed the package but it did
not come to Parliament before Whitehall had agreed it and that
was too late.
Q62 Mr McLoughlin: If you had a Secretary
of State for Europe and you then had a departmental Select Committee
that was monitoring what that department was doing, do you think
that would be a positive move forward in scrutinising it and getting
particular Members to concentrate on a longer-term basis?
Ms Stuart: It would allow you
to know at a much earlier time what that pulling together which
happens in Whitehall actually amounts to, it would allow Parliament
to be aware of that much earlier.
Q63 Mr McLoughlin: David, would you share
that view?
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: It might work
at this end, but I think it would be a mistake for all the departmental
responsibilities across Whitehall to be united in a single minister
in Brussels because I think we need the expertise from each of
the departments of state, we need them to be standing up for their
own and British interests in negotiating legislation in Brussels.
I am not in favour of a single Europe minister doing the job for
everybody.
Q64 Sir Nicholas Winterton: I think Gisela
got it in one and picking up on what David said in his opening
remarks, it is not that ministers do not have every opportunity,
it is that Parliament does not have any real opportunity and that
is why Parliament is really rather lukewarm, if not very chilly,
about Europe, because we carry no influence. We can scrutinise,
we can even object and refuse to take note of it, but at the end
of the day that makes not the slightest difference because the
Government of the day ignores that decision of the Scrutiny Committee
and merely puts down the original motion on the order paper of
the House to be nodded through without debate. This is really
where I think we are stymied. Government and ministers are not,
they can take all sorts of briefs and go and negotiate, but Parliament
has no real opportunity to go and to register and to have its
views properly taken into account. Would you agree with that,
David?
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Chairman,
I would simply on the basis of the record. References to the importance
of national parliaments has been in the Treaty for years now and
subsidiarity has been a Treaty requirement since 1992, but it
has not been effective in stopping this torrent of legislation
which dipped slightly after the completion of the single market,
although it is now accelerating again because the Union is getting
into new areas like home affairs and justice and immigration.
The European Scrutiny Select Committee is really completely inadequate
for the task of even looking critically at this volume let alone
doing anything about it, and then when we do disagree on an all-party
basis on something there is precious little can be done about
it. So we are confronted with this huge dynamic, this over-government
above us which we feel completely powerless to arrest. I have
to say, Chairman, although I will obey your strictures not to
discuss the merits of the Constitution, I really think that the
yellow card system, which I know the Government tried to strengthen,
is unequal to the task.
Q65 Chairman: We are going to come to
that.
Ms Stuart: Two very quick observations.
What Parliament lacks is a collective memory when I see these
very long timescales in which debates are going on. The second
thing is, it is for Parliament to question what the political
consequences of disapproval are and ultimately the Government
can always, whatever the committees do, prevail on its will and
I think that is right, but Parliament needs to address that process.
Q66 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Do you know
how they should do it?
Ms Stuart: We will come back to
it when we have looked at other countries.
Q67 Ann Coffey: You are saying that Parliament
has to make up its mind whether it is going to scrutinise or to
provide information. One of the things that occur to me from time
to time is how little we actually know what is happening in terms
of things that are being debated in Europe which may have consequences
for us, and within our current parliamentary system how that information
could be better provided to MPs. Do you think providing information
to Select Committees which do inquiries would be a good way of
doing that?
Ms Stuart: Unfortunately the press
headlines were dominated by the announcement of a referendum,
but what should have made the headlines on that day was that for
the first time the Government had published the Commission's annual
programme as a White Paper. That was a very significant step of
informing Parliament, but we did not take much notice of this
at the time. I think departmental Select Committees ought to make
it a bigger part of their inquiries to look at that annual programme
and then take on board those topics which are being covered in
there. When we table questions to various ministers we ought to
take much more notice of what happens in Europe and then ask questions
on the departmental side.
Q68 Mr Kidney: I think it would help
if I came in on a question I was going to ask later because we
have touched on it so much and it is the issue that David referred
to in his letter as item 3 and it is the question of what happens
at the Euro Committees, and I used to serve on Euro A. You mentioned
that the proposal could be changed, but the Government tables
in the House the original motion and we have been touching on
that question in response to David's point, which is an absolute
nonsense and does not encourage people to go. Have you studied
the Regulatory Reform procedure where if that Committee divides
or votes against something there has to be a debate on the floor
of the House? Would it not be more appropriate if the motion carried
by Euro A, B or C was to be tabled and the Government had to put
down an amendment to it? Would that not make the procedure a little
bit more meaningful and follow through what you are suggesting
in your letter?
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Chairman,
I agree with that. On at least an occasional basis these committees
ought to be able to refer the matter for general debate, a kind
of emergency brake system. The Constitution has come up with a
similar procedure for the Council of Ministers. Maybe the committees
of the House on an exceptional basis should be able to insist
either that the minister provides more information for a subsequent
debate or to check the minister's performance in subsequent Council
negotiations, or perhaps a debate on the floor of the House and
the minister having to defend a proposal against a recommendation
of the Standing Committee. This would all give a feeling that
these committees have teeth and then I think you would get genuine
interest, including the public interest because they can at least
watch these debates. Can I just slip in one problem we have in
relation to a previous question about the public right to know?
It is bizarre that the European Scrutiny Committee, my committee,
meets in secret. We are supposed to be doing this on behalf of
the public, they pay for it, they wonder what is going on, but
we do not admit them to our deliberations which I find extraordinary.
Q69 Mr Pike: It is stupid if a committee
sits for two and a half hours, amends a motion and that is not
even reported to the House.
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: I entirely
agree about that. Having been on both sides, a minister and an
ordinary member of the committee, it renders the thing nugatory.
Q70 Mr Heald: The Chairman of this Committee
has said that the House of Commons has a key role to play in bringing
the European Union closer to our citizens. Do you think this is
something that is correct and, if so, how would that work?
Ms Stuart: The Chairman may be
surprised to hear that I entirely agree with him. We have been
immensely amiss in doing so. We have largely ignored what happens
at a European level in our debates, and unless we actually anchor
those decisions here and explain to the people what we are doing
together with our MEPs on their behalf we will always have this
massive disconnection. The duty on us is at every level, whether
it is in ministerial question times or in any other debate, to
bring the European topics in. The problem we have here is a lack
of awareness of what happens until the very end when it is really
too late and then you have the danger that national parliaments
are perceived as grit in the oyster. We started debating only
at the very end. I think another key thing, other than the Government
publishing the Commission's annual programme as a White Paper,
is also the change that when the Council of Ministers act as legislators
they will now meet in public. I think there is a duty on us to
take more interest in what that Council does at an early stage.
Q71 Mr Heald: At the moment we tend to
debate documents rather than broad policy issues which are coming
up in Europe. Do you think we need to change that?
Ms Stuart: I think so. In our
Select Committees we need to ask MEPs to give evidence more and
I think we ought to have commissioners giving evidence on their
programmes. One of the real advances of that special committee
which was set up whilst the Convention on the Future of Europe
was operating was that we had a committee where the Commons and
the Lords could take evidence from non-ministers and I think that
should be looked at in future.
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: We have here
`rule by strangers'. We have more than half, some say two-thirds,
of UK legislation now originating in Brussels. We have no realistic
chance at our level of influencing it or even knowing what is
going on in many cases. So we are failing in our task which is
to defend our constituents and remedy their grievances. I was
stopped by a Somerset farmer last year who said, "Mr Amory,
the Physical Agents Vibration Directive, which is about me sitting
on my tractor, would you be in favour of that?" I had not
even heard of it. He said, quite rightly, "But we elected
you and you're telling me you've not even heard of it." I
checked, it is a Directive, it does not yet apply to British agriculture,
but it will. The entire system had let it through without anyone
even knowing about it. We have here an entrenched and enduring
failure and on my European Scrutiny Committee I watch this volume
going through this tiny pipe, this half or two-thirds of legislative
proposals, with me, at best, or our distinguished Chairman, being
the little boy trying to keep his finger in the dike. We meet
in private, so the public are not even allowed to see what we
are trying to do even if we could succeed.
Q72 Chairman: I just want to pick up
on something that Gisela said on the question of ministerial questions.
How do you think that that could be better focused? You implied
that there was not sufficient focus on the main departments involved,
whether it is home affairs or health or whatever, with the European
dimension. How could that be done better in your view on the floor
of the House, apart from people tabling more questions on these
issues?
Ms Stuart: This is where I think
it is helpful to look at what other countries do. For example,
in Finland every Friday morning you have the Grand Committee where
the various ministers come and simply inform Parliament as to
what the major broad areas are they will be discussing at European
level.
Q73 Chairman: In the following week usually.
Ms Stuart: Yes. It is a regular
slot. The minister changes, but it is about what is happening
at European level. The Dutch have more hearings where you would
have ministers and MEPs together who serve on the committees with
their specialist committee structure coming together again on
a regular basis. The Danish go to another extreme, they mandate
their ministers. It is actually a system which ties ministers
in much too tightly and becomes counter-productive. Other countries
have found ways of bringing national parliamentarians together
and they know the subject areas on a regular basis and therefore
parliamentarians know this is where they go to know what is going
to happen next.
Q74 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Can Parliament
influence that? You said they will be able to learn. Learning
is one thing, but as a Parliament you are supposed to have some
decision-making ability. What if we disagreed with that, would
Parliament have any authority?
Ms Stuart: The Danish system is
such that if a minister breaches the mandate given by Parliament
it becomes a resigning matter. I think it neutralises the ministers
to such an extent that if you go into a meeting and your colleagues
know your position they do not have to negotiate with you. So
I think it is too strong and sidelines you. The Finnish and the
Dutch model is one where you have an exchange and you agree what
the mandate is, and no minister would go on a negotiating position
if they knew that their Parliament substantially disagrees with
it. It is that early stage of negotiation which I think then becomes
much more powerful.
Q75 Sir Nicholas Winterton: David, do
you agree with that?
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: We went as
far up the chain as we could last year and interviewed two Commission
officials about their work programme. As the Committee knows,
they have the sole right of initiative, so when they launch something
it happens and when they do not launch something it cannot happen.
We picked up a number of objections, including what we thought
were the obvious subsidiarity breach, bringing forward measures
on violence in the workplace, which we all want to tackle in our
various ways, but it is hardly a matter for the EU when they have
got all these other problems. They showed no real sympathy or
understanding of that. As I mentioned, the Commissioner's subsequent
letter did not even refer to subsidiarity. We literally feel powerless
and slightly angry. We have written again as a Committee, but
what is the point in writing when one just gets the brush off?
Q76 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Do you like
the Danish scheme?
Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Maybe Denmark
has an ability to mandate their ministers to take this up on their
behalf because, I have to say, in another matter before us to
do with crime prevention, dealing with street robberies and anti
social behaviour, which is a separate initiative which we also
regard as a subsidiary breach, the Home Office is sympathetic
to the aims of the legislation and is not willing to challenge
it on subsidiarity grounds. The Committee—and I genuinely
speak for Labour Members here as well—do not feel in this
case that the Government are really fully behind us on subsidiarity,
so again there is awfully little we can do about it.
Q77 Martin Linton: I would like to ask
Gisela about the experience of committees in other countries.
You have mentioned the Finnish system and we have also asked about
the Danish system because we are going to go and have a look at
that. Are these not committees that have executive power rather
than just scrutiny committees? Do they not perform a rather different
function in their parliaments? It is something that we could not
quite replicate here, is that right?
Ms Stuart: At Westminster we operate
on a system where the Government has a majority and its will prevails
and that is a system I am quite attached to. In virtually all
the others we deal with coalitions which are formed between different
political parties and, therefore, parliament and those coalitions
become an alternative source of power. I think ultimately even
this Parliament needs to stick with the system that the Government
of the day's wish can ultimately prevail providing it has got
the majority and every so often the public at large can make up
its mind whether it still wishes to have that Parliament and it
knows what it gets when it votes for it. I think the Danish system
is far too prescriptive in that sense, but I think earlier information
which allows for that public debate, where the Parliament's view
is made quite clear—because at the moment Parliament's view
is not made quite clear at an early stage—is one we should
look at and that is where I would suggest we should look at the
other models.
Q78 Chairman: I was told by the Europe
minister for Sweden when I was Europe minister about the experience
of the Nice Treaty negotiations where they had an open line to
their European Committee sitting in Stockholm for seven hours
seeking a negotiating mandate as the European Council progressed
on the Nice Treaty. There are limits on nailing down a mandate.
I just wonder if you have any observations on the practicality
of this if we move away from a document based scrutiny system
to determining a mandate not just before you go out there but
a mandate while you are out there.
Ms Stuart: That is why I warned
against a system that becomes too restrictive. Again, I think
the Government actually made real progress when it published its
White Paper on the proposed Constitution. For the first time the
Government put its negotiating mandate as a document to the House
of Commons. We actually knew what this Government was going into
in its final negotiations. So it is that much earlier precise
information and an ability to debate it that is important, but
telling ministers they have to keep checking with Parliament before
they make final decisions I do not think would be very helpful.
Q79 Ann Coffey: I was not aware of the
fact that it is the first time the annual report of the Commission's
work has ever been published. I shall go immediately and find
the report of this work and look at it with great interest, particularly
in view of what David was saying. Do you think that maybe what
we should do is start giving earlier and regular information to
Parliament and ask the business managers to make time available
for a debate on that annual report on the floor of the House so
that Members of Parliament might have a view about the Commission's
work?
Ms Stuart: And preferably not
on a Thursday on a one line whip.
| 
