Bridget
Prentice: The decision must be unanimous, so in a sense
the hon. Gentleman has answered his own question. If there is not
unanimity next week, there will be further discussions and perhaps
agreement will be reached at a later stage. Other member states have
similar reservations to us, so those subjects are very much up for
discussion next
week. Mr.
Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): I am delighted
to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Chope. We have
established that there are just five weeks until the agency is to be up
and running, who will be the chairperson and the vice-chairperson of
the management board and how much will they be
paid?
Bridget
Prentice: I have absolutely no
idea.
Mr.
Cash: The Minister told us that the European Court of
Justice will not have a role in relation to the charter of fundamental
rights. How does she equate that with the preamble to the Council
regulation, which says that the charter will
involve “the case law of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the European Court
of Human Rights”?
Bridget
Prentice: If the hon. Gentleman had heard my opening
remarks, he would know that I made it
clear—
Bridget
Prentice: I think that the hon. Gentleman arrived a few
minutes after I started speaking. I made it clear that the charter is
not a legally binding document but a political declaration and must
therefore be viewed as such. We have been strong in saying that. The
European Court will no doubt look at what the agency and the programme
are doing, but I repeat that the charter is not a legally binding
document. I do not know how I can make that any clearer. If it is not
legally binding, it is not legally binding. However, many
of the rights described in the charter are also contained in other,
legally binding, European Union documents, and the courts may well look
to those documents when making legal decisions. The hon. Gentleman
should not think of the charter in isolation. It is not the sole source
of rights, and it may be used in reference to other
documents. In
fairness to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, who asked the
previous question, I will try to find out the details of the salaries
of the people about whom he asked and I will write to
him.
Mr.
Ellwood: We have established that this body is being set
up in five weeks’ time and that the Government have no idea who
will be its chairman and vice-chairman. Let us move away from the
management board and consider the executive board. Who will be on it,
and how much will they be
paid?
Bridget
Prentice: Sorry, I just turned to my colleague and missed
the very end of the hon. Gentleman’s question. Will he repeat
it?
Mr.
Ellwood: We have just established that even though this
body is being set up in five weeks’ time, we do not know who
will be on it and how much they will be paid. If the Minister does not
know who will be on the management board, perhaps she will have better
luck with the executive board. Who will be on it and how much will they
be paid?
Bridget
Prentice: To be absolutely fair to both the hon. Gentleman
and the Government, I was saying that I did not know who the chairman
would be or what their salary would be. I understand that the
director’s role is likely to be an extension of that of the
director of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and
that the Commission will oversee the transitional arrangements, so the
salary arrangements will be made within its established system. At this
stage, it is not possible for me to give the hon. Gentleman detailed
information on the individual members, but as soon as I have it, I will
ensure that he gets
it.
Mr.
Ellwood: I am grateful for that reply, but I am not
particularly happy with it. I appreciate and sympathise with the
Minister, who is standing in, but I hope that her advisers are not
standing in because we are here to debate this agency and its set-up,
and the consequences that arise. If we do not get these answers today,
will we get them between within five weeks? We have examined the
executive board and the management board; perhaps if we examine the
scientific committee we will be lucky third time around. Who authorised
this committee and how much will its members be
paid?
Bridget
Prentice: I am afraid that I do not think that I will be
able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman because, again, transitional
arrangements will be made. As soon as we have the details, I will be
happy to give him the information. Given that this proposal has to be
considered next week, we will soon be in a far clearer position to see
how all of that will stack up. Transitional arrangements will have to
be made from 1 January. Once they are
made clearer, I will be able to give him a much more detailed and direct
response. I
understand that if the hon. Gentleman looks at article 29 on page 32 of
the document, he will see what the arrangements will entail in terms of
the transition. He will see that the Commission will be
choosing “by lot 15
members of the Management
Board”. That will
doubtless be a very democratic system
indeed.
Mr.
Ellwood: We have established how many, but we have
not established who they are or how much they will be paid. Perhaps we
can end on an easy question. Will the Minister tell the good people of
Bournemouth, East how they benefit from a budget of €29 million
being spent on an agency, given that we do not know who its chairman or
vice-chairman will be, and we do not know who will run the management
board or the executive board, or who will be on the scientific
committee? Will she say how my constituents benefit from the setting up
of this agency?
Bridget
Prentice: I am delighted that the good people of
Bournemouth, East are as fascinated by this issue as I
am.
Mr.
Ellwood: With €29 million involved, of course they
are.
Bridget
Prentice: Well, I can say to the hon. Gentleman that
everyone in Bournemouth, East, in Lewisham, East and in the rest of the
European Union deserves policies and legislation that will keep their
fundamental rights to the fore. I hope that no one in this Committee
would resile from that, although I realise that the hon. Member for
Stone (Mr. Cash) may take a different view. However, in
general people think that we all deserve to ensure that our fundamental
rights are kept intact. It would be absurd, therefore, for the most
powerful body in Europe to have no formal access to independent advice
on the best way to guarantee our citizens the rights that we would
expect them to enjoy in a free and democratic society. In that sense, I
hope that the good people of Bournemouth, East, along with those of
Lewisham, East and elsewhere, will be able to feel comfortable in their
beds, knowing that the agency will be looking after their fundamental
rights.
Simon
Hughes: According to the reading that I have done, the
Government have a general concern in relation to these proposals, about
two issues other than the third pillar issues. The first is the
geographical scope of the agency, and the second is whether article 308
of the treaty provides a legally justifiable basis for the setting up
of the agency. Will the Minister tell the Committee the
Government’s position on each of those apparent
concerns?
Bridget
Prentice: On the geographical scope, there appears,
magically, to be some consensus among the working group that a
compromise has been reached. That is reflected in article 27 of the
presidency text of the regulation. The intention is to extend the
geographic remit to the six potential candidate
countries that are part of the stabilisation and association
process—Croatia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia,
Montenegro and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. As
prospective member states, they will undergo a process of adapting
their domestic law to Community law. The agency might have a role in
assisting them on the fundamental rights issues that will arise in the
course of that process. They will also be entitled to participate in
the agency. I am
pleased to say that there is support for the United Kingdom’s
position within the working group that monitoring third
countries’ fundamental rights performance is not an appropriate
role for the agency, so that is not going to happen. That would have
very negative repercussions, particularly for the agency’s
limited resources, and would take the agency’s focus away from
the European Community. Most importantly, as I hope hon. Members will
agree, it might undermine the work of the Council of Europe.
Article 308
is the legal basis for the regulations that will establish the agency,
and that will provide the Council with means to attain the objectives
of the Community if the treaty has not provided the necessary powers.
While ensuring respect for fundamental rights is not specifically
listed as a Community objective in articles 2 and 3 of the text, the
European Court of Justice has found that that is a condition for the
lawfulness of Community acts, so it will form an underlying or implied
objective of the
Community.
Simon
Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with
some complicated interrelated matters. I am a big fan of the Council of
Europe. I trained with it and used to work for it. The Minister has
mentioned the interrelationship between the Council of Europe and this
body. Is the Council of Europe entirely happy with the proposal as it
stands? Can the Minister explain how the responsibilities will be
divided—if the agency comes into operation—between the
agency, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and
Co-operation in Europe and the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights, who also has some responsibility for human rights across
all European Union countries as well as other
countries?
Bridget
Prentice: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point
about the relationship between the agency and the Council of Europe. It
is one reason why we are concerned not to widen the agency’s
geographical scope to third countries and not to extend its remit to
third pillar matters. We do not want duplication between the agency and
the Council of
Europe. On
the other hand, there will rightly be a great deal of communication
between the two bodies. The European Commission is responsible for
concluding the memorandum of understanding that will establish the
principles under which co-operation between them will take place. As I
understand it, there is now growing consensus among member states on
the need to ensure that a person appointed by the Council of Europe
sits on both the management board and the executive board of the
agency. Obviously, I hope that the primary focus of the agency on
advising Community institutions on fundamental rights will minimise
duplication. The
agency will refer to work by the United Nations and the
OSCE—again, in order to prevent duplication.
It is a matter of good communications between the different
institutions, but I think that that has already been established,
particularly with the MOU, which ensures that duplication does not take
place and that the Council of Europe’s remit is not undermined
by what the agency is doing or, indeed, vice
versa. Mr.
Cash: In her earlier comments, the Minister made it clear
that she regards the proposal as something that should be approved when
it gets to the Council in early December, but she also argued that if
the agency is to be established under article 308—a passerelle
clause—it should be a Community body, not a European Union body.
She knows that serious doubts have been expressed by the European
Scrutiny Committee about whether there is a power under the treaty to
allow the use of article 308 in the first place. That Committee
referred particularly
to “circumstances where
the Agency was not given any role under the EU
treaty.” If
there are such serious reservations on a matter of such importance to
the Government—the Minister expressed reservations in her
reports and responses to the Committee—why does she not use the
veto under the unanimity provisions of the Council regulation to veto
the treaty, or is she confident that she will be able to win over the
other member
states?
Bridget
Prentice: Taking the hon. Gentleman’s last question
first, I am reasonably confident that not I but my skilful right hon.
Friend Baroness Ashton will indeed be able to win over the other
states. As I said at
the beginning of my remarks, the key point is that we oppose the
decision to extend the agency’s activities to third pillar
matters. Indeed, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman implied in his
comments. It would be better to call the agency a Community body rather
than a European Union body, as that would make it absolutely clear to
everyone that it does not deal with third pillar issues. However,
discussions on that are ongoing, and I am sure that my right hon.
Friend will be able to make the United Kingdom’s position
crystal clear. I cannot make any further comment until that political
agreement has been
achieved. It is also
important to recognise that the agency is an information-gathering
organisation. It will gather together information on fundamental rights
issues Community law and provide guidance and advice. On that
basis, we should not have too much worry about it extending its remit.
We have made clear our position on such matters. I hope that, during
discussions next week, we shall persuade others that our position is
the right
one. Mr.
Nick Hurd (Ruislip-Northwood) (Con): It is disappointing
that, five weeks from the launch, the Committee cannot identify those
charged with running an agency with a budget of €28 million of
taxpayers’ money. I press the Minister to help us identify who
this country is putting forward as our national liaison officer as
required under clause 17 on page 10. How much will that person
cost?
Bridget
Prentice: I refer the hon. Gentleman to article 29, which
sets out how the agency will be set up and describes the transitional
arrangements. During our earlier discussion, I was given the name of
Beate Winkler. She is presently chair of the monitoring agency and will
be carrying on in that
role. The hon.
Gentleman asked about our named people. I hope to be receiving advice
on that matter. I am thinking of something interesting to say to him
while waiting for that advice to arrive. If I cannot think of something
interesting, I shall just say that specific decisions will be made as
soon as the document is adopted by the January Council. I am sure that
I have clarified matters remarkably for the hon.
Gentleman.
Simon
Hughes: I want to pursue the link with the Council of
Europe. The Minister may have inadvertently not specifically answered
the question about its latest view. If the European Union continues
expanding, its membership will soon be the same as that of the Council
of Europe. Is it logical to have two European bodies accountable to two
different institutions doing the same job? The Council of Europe has a
fantastically good reputation on human rights issues. That was the
cause of the drafting of the convention. It has been the body
responsible to the European Court of Human Rights and the European
convention on human rights. It has regularly monitored Council of
Europe member countries and other countries that have supplied
observers at elections and so on. Why is it necessary for a second body
to be created that does a job that could reasonably be done by the
Council of Europe, even it needed some more resources through the
Council of Europe? Is the Council of Europe entirely happy with the
current
proposal?
| 
