Examination of Witnesses (Questions 420-439)
26 MAY 2004
RT HON
ALISTAIR DARLING
MP, MR JOHN
STEVENS AND
MR MICHAEL
SMETHERS
Q420 Mr Stringer: There are, of course,
those countries who refuse to negotiate with the Commission, are
there not?
Mr Darling: Yes. Well, they do
not want to; I do not know that they have actually said they refuse,
as such.
Q421 Mr Stringer: They have said they
do not recognise—
Mr Darling: Yes, but what these
countries tend to say is, "We want to negotiate with you,
the Member State, rather than the Commission". You are right,
the Russians take a particularly strong line on that.
Q422 Mr Stringer: You have given model
answers, Secretary of State, on subsidiarity and the boundaries
between national government and Commission responsibilities. However,
the evidence we have had has not shown that to be the case. We
have had people—they have not used this word but I will
use it—saying, in effect, there has been Euro-creep; that
in maritime matters the European Union has been taking over from
the International Maritime Organisation; in aviation it is taking
over individual agreements and we are now just about to have health
and safety legislation to take over working time regulations that
were in existence before. It now appears that there are proposals
to force the introduction of random breath tests on this country.
Is that not a much more accurate reflection of the relationship
between this Member State and the European Union than the theoretical
answer that there are very clear lines, and actually the balance
is moving one way?
Mr Darling: No, I do not think
so. In my experience, frankly, if people like what has come from
Europe then they say it is a jolly good idea and if they do not
they say it is Euro-creep. I may generalise but I think it is
not an unfair generalisation.
Q423 Mr Stringer: That was not the question,
to be fair.
Mr Darling: Whether you like it
or not, I think that is my general response. If you look at any
one of these measures that you mention, you have to decide whether
or not it is necessary in order to make the single market work
and whether it is convenient because it is better to do these
things at a European level. If you take the example of breath
testing, criminal law is something for Member States. I am thinking
of another example where, I suppose, there will be argument in
relation to the directive that will be coming along soon on driving
licences and driving standards. Obviously that is a primary concern
between Member States. However, it is in our interests that somebody
who drives a lorry from, say, the Eastern side of the European
Union and drives it up and down the streets of Manchester is competently
taught, that the driving licence is his driving licence and not
somebody else's and that he knows what he is doing. That is an
example of where one person might say that that is an imposition
and another might say that might be a jolly good idea if we are
going to have a single market. So you can run those arguments
both ways, I think.
Q424 Mr Stringer: You can run the argument
in favour or against them both ways, but what you cannot have
both ways is the amount of space covered by those arguments. The
fact is that the European Commission is taking more responsibility
for more areas, and the list I gave you is evidence of that.
Mr Darling: In all the areas we
have covered in aviation and safety at sea there are good arguments
for saying some of this ought to be dealt with at a European level.
I have touched on railways, and interoperability, for example—making
sure that the markets are open. That is fine and something which
should be dealt with at the European level. There are other things
that, frankly, are properly the province of the Member State.
In each case you have to reach a judgment on what is appropriate.
I am not saying there are not people in Brussels, in the Commission,
who would dearly love to extend what they do. It is up to Member
States to be vigilant, to make sure that Europe does what Europe
is good at and does not start doing things which, frankly, Member
States ought to be doing. In relation to the space that these
things take up, as you know, Europe takes up a lot of space in
political discussions in this country, and that is just a fact
of life.
Q425 Mr Stringer: Will you resist random
breath testing if the Commission proposed it?
Mr Darling: I read this in the
newspaper at the weekend and the Home Secretary made the position
quite clear that we do not think that is justified. Again, we
must not be complacent, but our record on road safety is good
in this country—perhaps, one of the safest in Europe—and
we think that the regime we have in relation to being able to
stop people and breath-test is the right one. Of course, we will
always keep these things under review. We do not think that random
breath testing is a particularly good way of dealing with risks;
in this country the police know the sort of areas that they are
far better targeting. I am not sure that the Commission has made
a proposal, as such, in relation to that. I know that right across
Europe—in France, for example, the French Government, because
of the very high road casualty rate has recently put in a lot
of effort into tightening up their drinking and driving laws.
That is a matter for France if that is something they ought to
be doing—something I would encourage as somebody who has
occasionally driven through France because it is in my interest
we should have safe roads—but something like that is really,
I would have thought, better dealt with by the Member State; it
is a matter of criminal law, after all.
Q426 Mr Stringer: As I understand it,
it is a non-binding Recommendation at the present time which the
Commission are considering enforcing.
Mr Darling: There is a huge difference
between a Recommendation and a directive. Recommendations can
be filed in the top drawer. As I said, the Home Secretary made
it pretty clear at the weekend, which is when this thing hit the
newspapers, how the Government thought of it.
Q427 Mr Stringer: One final question.
In reply to Mrs Ellman's questions on Regulatory Impact Assessments,
you said that, basically, they were not as good as you would like
them to be. Have you seen one?
Mr Darling: Have I seen one? I
would not pretend to have studied one in great detail. The department
sees them and I have read our assessment of them, yes.
Q428 Mr Stringer: So you have not actually
seen one?
Mr Darling: I do not think I have
ever sat down and studied one from start to finish.
Q429 Mr Stringer: Can you tell me which
one you have looked at?
Mr Darling: No, I cannot, offhand.
As I said I have not looked at one.
Q430 Mr Stringer: Do you believe they
exist?
Mr Darling: Yes.
Q431 Mr Stringer: This is not a theoretical
question I have asked, because the predecessors of these Regulatory
Impact Assessments were European Economic Impact Assessments which
were supposed to be attached to every piece of European legislation,
and I have never met a Commissioner, or a member of the Commission,
who has ever seen one.
Mr Darling: They do exist and
within the department I think I am right in saying that one of
my ministerial colleagues has a very happy existence looking at
the things. The way we organise the work in the department, there
is a lot of legislation that comes from European proposals, and
so on, and I look at some and I deal with different aspects of
it and other ministers deal with other ones. I will happily have
a word with my ministerial colleague, and it could be that he
has been telling me all the time that he was not looking at them,
but I certainly believe that he was looking at them. I certainly
look at assessments of these things, especially the big issues
that I have to deal with. If somebody told you they do not exist,
I know it is difficult to prove a negative, but if you would like
to tell me which one does not exist I will certainly see if I
can find it.
Q432 Mr Stringer: I have searched for
them in a previous existence and never actually found one.
Mr Darling: We do consult people
in relation to that. I would have thought that if you were right
that they did not exist them somebody would have pointed it out
to us.
Mr Stringer: Thank you.
Q433 Chairman: Not necessarily, Secretary
of State. I can think of nothing better than sitting in the Department
of Transport and looking at something that does not exist and
giving reports thereon!
Mr Darling: It is an important
point. When you get one of these proposals we consult. I would
find it hard to believe that the various people we consult, who
are pretty well equipped to do that, would not say "Where
is your assessment?"
Q434 Chairman: We can save all this,
actually, Secretary of State. You have got people doing this;
perhaps you would give us a one-page note which tells us which
particular assessments have been looked at in the last year.
Mr Darling: Even better, I will
send you some.
Q435 Chairman: How kind. We would like
the numbers of others as well, not just the only one you can find.
Mr Darling: If you want—is
it feasible to send every single one we have got?
Mr Stevens: Yes.
Q436 Chairman: No, no, I will be quite
happy knowing the numbers of papers that are thrown out by the
Commission, and quite happy with a list of the numbers that have
been looked at and an exemple.
Mr Darling: How will you know
if they really exist if we do not send them to you? Let me see
what is feasible and, perhaps, send a sample. How about that?
Q437 Chairman: Yes, perhaps a little
organ gram on how many of your civil servants have been having
you on in the last five years.
Mr Darling: I might even send
you along—perhaps I should not inflict this on my ministerial
colleague for whom too much of his life is engaged in looking
at these things.
Chairman: We always like to contribute
to the education of our colleagues.
Q438 Mr Randall: Secretary of State,
how have measures to improve the single market benefited the UK
transport sector?
Mr Darling: The regime that was
changed to allow low-cost airlines is one example.
Q439 Mr Randall: Can you think of any
more?
Mr Darling: There is one currently
going through, as you know, in relation to the European vignette,
for example, which would allow us properly to implement the Lorry
Road User Charging scheme which is in support of the freight industry,
which is another example of where the single market operates.
There are others as well. For example, the regime that has allowed
cabotage. That is good for UK hauliers and it is good for consumers
in this country. There are many examples of where a large market
is beneficial and where opening up access to transport is also
beneficial as well.
| 
