Examination of Witnesses (Questions 118-119)
14 JULY 2004
DR RICHARD
CORBETT MEP, MR
TIMOTHY KIRKHOPE
MEP, MR CHRIS
HUHNE MEP AND
DR JOHN
WHITTAKER MEP
Q118 Chairman: Good morning and welcome
to the Committee; I think it is a novel occasion. We know you
have had to rearrange your diaries at some considerable awkwardness
and we are very grateful that you have come. As you are aware
we are looking at the issue of the scrutiny and handling of European
business in the House. There is a lot of concern that it is on
the one hand not properly scrutinised and there is no proper liaison
between the progress of legislation through the European Parliament
and the Commission with what is happening here. We are very interested
in your own views from your perspective and I wondered if I may
start by saying first of all that we tend to have these sessions,
although they are on the record, as fairly informal so this is
not a kind of interrogation; we are interested in your own ideas.
Could I start by asking what your impression and your knowledge
of Westminster are from your vantage point as MEPs and how much
you know about how we operate to give us a view on how we can
elicit from you how things could be improved?
Mr Kirkhope: First of all, thank
you very much for this opportunity for all of us. From my point
of view, of course, I was a member of this House. Indeed, whilst
I was a member of this House I had some very interesting jobs
including a period of incarceration in the Whip's office, as Mr
McLoughlin knows. I was, in fact, the Scottish Whip responsible
for the operations of the Scottish Grand Committee. What you are
doing at the moment is quite interesting to me in that regard
as I was always excluded from the processes, not being a Scottish
MP. I see that in your own memorandum, Leader, you are actually
referring very clearly to what may happen in future. No doubt
we will get onto this later. I was, of course, not only a whip
here but a Home Office minister too so I know from a ministerial
point of view what the problems are and also having been an MEP
now—coming into my second term—I know that the relationship
between MEPs and MPs is, to say the least, imperfect. Whatever
one's views on Europe might be, it is very unsatisfactory that
there is such an apparent lack of interest in the matters in Europe
in terms of the detail and in terms of the legislative processes
and so on by members of Parliament; there is so little take-up
on the opportunities available to members of Parliament to visit
us in Brussels apart from when they come on committees—which
they do—but otherwise not at all. I think that relationship
is very dangerous because it does not allow this House to have
advance warning of what is happening in Europe and the criticisms
which occur often in the tabloid press—but certainly pass
around among all of us as representatives of the people of Britain—get
completely misunderstood because there is not a basic intervention
by our national Parliament at an early enough stage in the formulation
of policies. I conclude by saying this, that I am very much in
support of some initiative being taken here. I put down amendments
as you may know, Chairman, while I was a member of the Convention,
asking for joint committees of MPs and MEPs to be put in place.
Indeed, it is Conservative Party policy—it was in our manifesto
at the European elections—that that should be something
we would press for so that we could deal with this matter. I believe
that in your memorandum you are not going nearly far enough when
you talk about merely attendance of MEPs. I think attendance at
anything is something which is often declined by those who are
being offered the opportunity if they are not having a useful
role. I hope it is going to go much further than that and I would
like it to be very much along the lines of what we suggested.
I am very happy to assist you with any further questions after
my colleagues have spoken.
Q119 Chairman: That is actually very
helpful, Tim. I think we would like to come back later on to this
idea of liaison between MPs and MEPs and your proposal for a joint
committee which I guess you are making formally as a good proposal
and we would like to explore that with you. Richard, do you want
to add to that?
Dr Corbett: I would like to say
that the link between us is important. I think the roles of the
national and the European Parliaments should be complementary.
Your role is particularly important because when all is said and
done nothing of great significance is decided in Brussels without
it going through the Council and the Council is composed of national
ministers who are members of national governments accountable
to their national parliaments. That accountability is vital in
terms of making sure the European Union is doing what it should
do and doing it correctly. The link between the national ministers
and their own national parliaments is something that should be
vital to the whole process. We come in in a complementary way
as the European Parliament deals with the Council as an institution
and with the Commission and there should be two sides of the coin
rather than any conflict. I do not think it is my role to comment
on how you go about that in terms of a grand committee, improving
the role of select committees, re-organising the Scrutiny Committee
or whatever; that is up to you. However, I would put forward five
very brief ideas to think about. One is, should you look at the
practice—notably in the Nordic countries—of having
ministers appear before whatever seems to be the appropriate committee
before they go off to Council meetings in Brussels.
|
