Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380-399)
26 MAY 2004
RT HON
ALISTAIR DARLING
MP, MR JOHN
STEVENS AND
MR MICHAEL
SMETHERS
Q380 Chairman: We might get some more
satisfactory answers.
Mr Darling: It depends from which
point of view you are looking at it. I think that the answer is
that, of course, yes, there are some cases where they do it properly,
but there are other cases—railway safety is a case in point,
where a third directive is being proposed at the moment—where
we want to be very sure that, before there is any directive, people
have properly looked at the costs and the impact and then decided
whether or not the thing is justified. So, yes, it is a qualified
answer, Mrs Dunwoody, but, like so many things in life, they are
not black or white.
Q381 Mrs Ellman: What are the areas where
you are concerned that the impact assessments were not done properly?
Mr Darling: I mentioned railways
just now.
Q382 Mrs Ellman: Is that the major one?
Mr Darling: Let me give you one
example. This is something that has been proposed—for example,
that there should be a common system of certification or training
for drivers. I understand the rationale for that. If you have
a driver taking a freight train from southern Italy to the north
of Scotland, you would like to think that he is competent to drive
all through these things.
Q383 Chairman: You would like to think
that he got a rest!
Mr Darling: And maybe a rest in
between times. However, if the proposal meant that all drivers
had to be certificated to do that, then you have to ask yourself
whether the man who drives the train from Kyle of Lochalsh to
Inverness really needs to be competent to drive the train down
to Naples if he is never going to take his train anywhere near
Edinburgh, let alone Naples. So that is an example of where you
need properly to assess whether or not the benefit you are allegedly
going to get is justified. There are places where that has been
done; there are places where, frankly, we would like to do more.
This is probably a very good example. As you know, there is a
live issue within our own country as well as within Europe.
Q384 Mrs Ellman: The Commission's proposals
very often change significantly through the various processes
of negotiation and discussion that take place. Do you think there
is a need for more impact assessments at later stages of proposals?
Mr Darling: If they change and
if there has not been an impact assessment, it should be done.
I think that my starting point would be that, before something
is proposed, one of the first questions you should ask yourself
is "What is the impact of this? What is the cost? Is it justified?".
I am sure that there are many proposals that, had they been looked
at at the start, they would not have had to be amended quite so
much along the subsequent procedure. So what is important is that
you do it at the start but also, as you reach the conclusion,
and this looks like the directive that is going to be implemented,
then perhaps you should double-check. If you go round the country,
as I am sure all of us do, and speak to people in business and
they complain about red tape, an awful lot of it comes from European
legislation. One of the things we have done, and it is one of
the things that we are pursuing with the Irish presidency, and
the next presidency through our own presidency, are the measures
that I hope will result in our having a real assault on that red
tape. As I say, it is very easy, when you are making the rules
and regulations and you are far away from the people that you
affect, to forget that these things do have a cost and do have
an impact. The question is do you get a better benefit as a result.
These things need to be tested.
Q385 Mrs Ellman: If it is the Commission
who appoint the consultants to assess its own proposals, can those
results actually be trusted, or is there any way of dealing with
it other than to repeat the exercise?
Mr Darling: The answer to that
question, I think, is yes. Of course, with all of these things,
you can hire 57 consultants and get 57 different answers. Successive
governments have hired consultants and said, "This is our
evidence". Others, who oppose a proposition, will hire consultants
and they might come up with something different. What you have
to do is get consultants, or do it yourself, or whatever, and
you say, "This is the impact". It is then open, and
quite rightly so, for others to come forward and say, "That's
actually a load of rubbish. We don't think these figures are right
because you have not taken into account this or that". Let
us face it, in most propositions, if someone is against you, one
of the first things they will dispute is the independence of the
consultant that was hired. Equally, when others produce their
consultants, we will criticise them as well. I am afraid that
is just a fact of life.
Q386 Mrs Ellman: The assessments of the
proposals for the European Intermodal Loading Unit have produced
very different reactions, have they not?
Mr Darling: Yes.
Q387 Mrs Ellman: The industry disputes
the findings of the Commission. What would you put that down to?
Is it something wrong in the way it was assessed or is it just
different interests?
Mr Darling: It could be a number
of things. This is a measure where I can see why you would want
to avoid a situation where, within a few years, there were lots
of different types of containers or things that move people about.
As you know, there are international standards at the moment.
The question you have to ask is, why do you need a European level
on top of that? But I suspect it is something where you will get
a difference of opinion between different people. Our view is,
whatever the outcome of these various consultants' findings, we
need to be sure there is a justification for doing these things.
That comes back to the point that I made right at the start. You
need to ask yourself on each occasion why is this thing being
done and is it actually necessary. If it is not necessary, you
should not be doing it.
Q388 Mrs Ellman: How important do you
think Members of the European Parliament are in decision-making?
Mr Darling: They are important
because, over the years, they have been given power to amend or
to make proposals in relation to various directives, and there
are a lot of areas where there is co-decision. It is important.
It is an example of where the quality and, dare I say, the political
beliefs of MEPs actually matter, because they can influence things.
That is something that has been in place for a number of years
now.
Q389 Mrs Ellman: How do you communicate
with them? Do you have any fixed system, where they are aware
of your concerns?
Mr Darling: Yes.
Q390 Mrs Ellman: How does it work?
Mr Darling: We maintain our relations
with all MEPs. Obviously the Department does it, and therefore
it is with all MEPs. It is not ones of one political party. We
keep them up to date with what we are doing and the issues that
are coming. Where there are things that are of concern to us,
then we lobby them: sometimes successfully; sometimes not. We
cannot tell them what to do, obviously. Even here we have problems
from time to time, as you know, instructing people what to do!
It is even more difficult in the European Parliament. But, yes,
we do keep in touch. As in this place, there are areas where particular
members maintain an interest and we will talk to them more—because
they come to us and ask to be kept informed—than other members,
who may have little interest in whatever the subject happens to
be.
Q391 Mrs Ellman: Do you think they have
sufficient access to information from the Department, as matters
proceed?
Mr Darling: I think that they
do; or, to put it another way, they have not complained to us
that they have not. On the occasions when they have said, "Could
you tell us more?" then, within the normal bounds of what
we can do, we will tell them. I think that is the case.
Q392 Mrs Ellman: The Draft Constitutional
Treaty has some new provisions on looking at subsidiarity issues.
How would that affect the way you operate, if it went through
as it is now?
Mr Darling: It depends on what
the thing looks like in its final form. Do you mean in communications
with the European Parliament?
Q393 Mrs Ellman: Yes, on how issues to
do with subsidiarity would be identified, and early warning systems—how
they would operate.
Mr Darling: Whatever the new system
happens to be—and, as you know, these things are all being
discussed—we will clearly need to look at our procedures
more. I think that it comes back to the point I made right at
the start. It is important that our starting point should be that
subsidiarity is key. The question is, can we do it here? Is there
any reason for anyone else to do it? These are things where there
are a variety of things we need to do, to be in there at the start.
One of the things at which we are getting progressively better
is getting in there before the decisions are made, or before minds
start to firm up, rather than waiting for something to be tabled—which,
as you know, in most procedures is late in the day. It is much
better to be trying to influence opinion at an earlier stage,
rather than at a later stage.
Q394 Mrs Ellman: Could you give any example
where the UK's involvement at an earlier stage has made a difference?
Mr Darling: I will give you one
example, which I think you are looking at, in relation to shipping
and the oil spills after the Erica and the Prestige.
We were involved at an early stage. We are a maritime state. As
you know, there is this tension between MARPOL, which is an international
agreement, and the proposal from the Commission, and there are
some Member States—France and Spain, for perfectly obvious
reasons—who say, "That's not nearly enough. We want
to get an awful lot further". Our concern is to make sure
that we do not get too far away from international obligations,
for obvious reasons. Although, like any state that is surrounded
by water, we are very conscious of the potential damage that could
be caused. However, it is an example of where, getting in there
and arguing our corner—and the negotiations are not yet
concluded—we can influence things. I will give you another
example of where we should have been in earlier: the Working Time
Directive, which had its genesis about 10 years ago. Had we got
in there earlier and been engaged when the thing was formulated
10 years ago, then some of the things we have had to fight to
negotiate—depending on which view you take of these things,
of course—to try to get a more flexible approach would have
been a lot easier. Those are two examples, if you like: one thing
we could have done better; one thing that we have done. There
are lots of examples of things that are happening throughout Europe
at the moment. Single skies, for example—that is at a very
early stage. We think that we have a good regime here in terms
of air traffic control and air safety. It is one where we are
engaging in Europe, through NATS and at a governmental level.
It is an example of where we share the objective. Given the importance
of having a good air traffic control system throughout the whole
of Europe, we need to make sure that we get in there and influence
it in a way that will be beneficial to us.
Q395 Miss McIntosh: In relation to the
bilateral negotiations with the US, you refer to political will.
How has the US demonstrated it has any degree of political will
in these negotiations, when to agree to the three key factors—of
Fly America, access to cabotage and access to foreign ownership
of US carriers—would require fundamental changes in US law?
How open do you think they are actually being in these negotiations?
Where is the political will on their side?
Mr Darling: I do not think you
should confuse political will with difference of opinion. As you
well know, the view of successive American governments and the
aviation industry there is that they would be very reluctant to
allow a substantial liberalisation. On the other hand, because
of the huge pressures on the US airlines—they have huge
financial pressures—one of the things they would like to
be able to do is to get into the very large market that is the
European Union. We have made clear that if they want into the
European market, then there has to be some kind of quid pro quo:
we have to be able to get access there. However, you are right.
I do not think that anyone would fool themselves into believing
that this is an easy negotiation and that there are not difficult
issues to be tackled, and strongly held views. It depends to whom
you speak in the United States but, as you know, the US aviation
industry has gone through a very difficult time. A lot of their
companies have financial difficulties. I have always taken the
view that this negotiation, and moving forward towards a genuine
Open Skies agreement, is something that will take time; but it
is worth taking time to achieve because the benefits, if it will
work and if you get it through, would be very substantial.
Q396 Miss McIntosh: Perhaps I may press
you on that point, Secretary of State. Are you convinced, in your
own heart of hearts and in your own mind, that the US Government
would push through the law change that is required? The Chairman
will recall that my husband did work for an American carrier for
23 years and now, by choice, is no longer working for an American
airline. Do you really think that they can deliver on a change
of law, to agree to a liberalising scheme?
Mr Darling: The answer to that,
I suppose, would be that, if an agreement could be reached, it
would depend upon what was on offer. The Americans would ask,
just as we would ask on this side, "What's in it for us?".
One of the things that American Airlines, for example, would weigh
in the balance is "What do we get out of this? Is it advantageous
to us?". If there was not much on offer then, you are right,
they would be very difficult. If, on the other hand, there was
a lot on offer, in terms of getting into what would certainly
be the largest economic union in the world, then they might be
interested in that. It is very difficult for me to speculate as
to what the outcome might be; but you are right in saying that
the Americans, historically, have been very reluctant to open
up their aviation market—in contrast to ourselves, for example,
where we have operated a fairly liberal regime for some time.
It is just one of these things you have to work your way through.
However, suppose we take the view, "There's nothing we can
do. Therefore we will just carry on with Bermuda 2, and maybe
Bermuda 3 in another few years' time". I think that would
be to miss an opportunity. It is well worth making an attempt
to get an agreement, but an agreement has to be a genuine Open
Skies agreement and not one that is lopsided, as I said.
Q397 Miss McIntosh: Have you made an
assessment, in terms of delivery of policy through the European
Commission, of what difference it will make having only one Commissioner
from the autumn? That is, the fact that Britain will only have
one Commissioner in the new Commission?
Mr Darling: No, I do not think
that it will make a substantial difference. Taking my own experience,
if you look at transport, yes, there may be occasions when you
want to speak to the British Commissioner and say, "Can you
help us here?", but most of your discussions tend to be,
in this case, with the Commissioner who deals with transport.
Given that the European Union now has 25 members, if everybody
had two Commissioners then the Commission would become a very
large body. This is the whole argument about having an agreement
as to how to operate Europe. One of the difficulties you have,
for example with a presidency that changes every six months, is
that you can be moving along and then the next person takes over.
These are things you just have to work through, and what is important
is that the Commissioner for the relevant area is fully engaged
and alive to all the issues.
Q398 Miss McIntosh: In your replies this
afternoon you have said that the Commission is seeking to go further
than the MARPOL provisions.
Mr Darling: That is on the ships.
Q399 Miss McIntosh: Yes. In particular,
I gather that there is a suggestion that the Commission is proposing
that confiscation of a ship or imprisonment would be a sanction
for a pollution incident. Does it concern you that the master
of the Prestige is effectively under house arrest to this
day?
Mr Darling: There are two things
here. First, the question of criminal sanctions is a matter for
Member States. I was referring to the fact that what the Commission
is more exercised with at the moment is defining what the offence
is. As you know, under MARPOL there are circumstances where discharges
are permitted, for saving a ship or saving lives at sea or if
there is a collision and it is not your fault—I generalise,
but you know what I mean—whereas they are proposing a rather
stricter liability. In relation to the position of the captain
in Spain, that really is a matter for Spain and the process has
been overseen by the Spanish judicial authorities. I am not in
a position to pass comment on it, one way or the other.
|
