Bridget
Prentice: The hon. Gentleman puts a very well argued case
for the Council of Europe. I reiterate the Government’s position
that the Council of Europe does a very good job in all the areas to
which the hon. Gentleman has referred. However, it is much engaged in
the discussions on the memorandum of understanding and any worries that
it has will obviously be raised in that
forum. A reasonable
number of European countries are still not part of the Community and
are not on the horizon as becoming member states so, as the hon.
Gentleman described, the Council of Europe will still have an important
body of work. I recognise his argument that there is a worry that the
agency might duplicate some of the Council of Europe’s work,
particularly human rights issues, but we want to ensure that there is
no such overlap or that, if there is, it should be avoided as much as
possible. That is why we very much support the fact that the
agency’s role will be restricted to community law and its
geographical scope to the European Union and the candidate
countries. We
encourage and underline the co-operation that needs to be developed
between the Council of Europe and the agency, and one example of that
is the memorandum of understanding. There are others contained in the
regulation establishing the agency, including an appointment by the
Council of Europe of an independent person on the management board, who
will also sit as an observer on the executive board. In
those ways, we have included mechanisms to ensure that the Council of
Europe is not fettered in the work that it is doing exceptionally well,
particularly in human rights. I hope that that will go some way towards
reassuring the hon.
Gentleman. Mr.
Christopher Fraser (South-West Norfolk) (Con): I declare
an interest at this point, which I am sure stands for both you and
myself, Mr. Chope, as we are both attendees and members of
the Council of Europe. I am somewhat curious about what has just been
said about the Council. I have sat on it since arriving back in the
House at the last election and I cannot see in the Minister’s
proposals the unique powers that the agency will be given to ensure
that there is not duplication. She has said “no
duplication” half a dozen times, but I cannot see any unique
powers. Perhaps she could explain them to me more
clearly.
Bridget
Prentice: I say to the hon. Gentleman that I have not
spoken at all about unique powers. I have said that the agency’s
role will be to give non-binding guidance and advice. I suppose that he
is asking why the agency is being set up at all. The answer is that it
will fill what the Union feels is a gap in monitoring fundamental
rights across the Union in the implementation of Community law. It is
to that end that we consider that, with its finite resources, it will
be necessary for the agency to concentrate on the areas in which it has
the greatest potential relevance and usefulness, and on its primary
purpose of building on the mandate of the European Monitoring Centre on
Racism and Xenophobia. It should be a fact-finding, opinion-giving body
that gives non-binding guidance and advice. It will therefore play a
different role from that of the Council, but one parallel to
it.
Mr.
Fraser: I cannot see how there are unique powers in what
has just been said. May I say respectfully that the answer was as clear
as mud to
me? I
wish to ask another question. The hon. Member for North Southwark and
Bermondsey asked a clear question about what consultation has taken
place. The response was not coherent to me. What meetings have taken
place? Who attended them from the Council of Europe and the
Minister’s Department, and what was their outcome? Have all the
British delegates to the Council of Europe, from all political parties,
been involved in the process of understanding what happened in those
meetings so that we can stand up in the Council—yourself and
myself included, Mr. Chope—and fly the banner for
this initiative? I say plainly that as I stand here now, I have not had
any information on it at all. We have only five weeks to go before the
agency is established. I hope that that is enough time for the
Minister’s advisers to give her the
answer.
Bridget
Prentice: Let me go back a step. I am sorry that the hon.
Gentleman thought that my last answer was as clear as mud. I thought
that I made it quite clear that the role of the agency will be that of
giving non-binding guidance and advice. I have said two, three or
possibly four times that its remit will be purely Community law, and it
will not step outside that. We have strongly established that as its
role, which is very different from that of the Council of Europe. As
the
hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out, the Council
of Europe has examined human rights issues and so on in countries
outside the European
Union. The Commission
consulted in October 2004, I believe, and there was a briefing to
United Kingdom MPs at the Council of Europe in April, and again in
November. I am not a member of the Council of Europe, so I was not
there, but my understanding is that British members have been kept in
contact on the subject at two meetings this
year.
Mr.
Fraser: I am grateful for the Minister’s comments.
However, I suggest that it would have done the Government no harm had
they come back directly to all the members of the Council of Europe,
rather than leaving us to expect something in our postbag. That is the
frank and open way in which we in the Council of Europe have dealt with
matters during my time as a member. The Minister mentioned that there
is restriction to community law. I hear what she says, but what plans
do the Government have to implement complementary programmes at
national level, to ensure that what she proposes will apply equally and
fully across the European Union? What is the cost of the
programmes?
Bridget
Prentice: I clarify for the hon. Gentleman that the
discussions with the Council of Europe members did not involve my
Department; European Commission members had the discussions, and it was
up to Members here to attend. However, I take his point on board,
because personally I feel strongly that we should make every effort to
communicate with our representatives, not just on these issues but on
all. I shall certainly indicate to my colleagues who attend European
institutions that it is important that we keep our Members—from
whichever party—informed of issues, as those issues
arise. The hon.
Gentleman asked what we are doing at a national level. Obviously, there
is no incorporation into domestic law in the sense that he intended.
However, as signatories to a number of international human rights
treaties, we will want to ensure that we follow at national level the
procedures that are set out at European level. We would be rightly
criticised if we did not, and I hope that, as we watch the agency
develop, we shall be able to learn from it and perhaps offer it some
advice on best practice, to make sure that the fundamental rights of
citizens on the domestic front are properly monitored, recognised and
protected.
Mr.
Bellingham: The Minister said a couple of times that Her
Majesty’s Government have strong reservations about references
to the charter. I imagine that she was referring to the references to
the charter that are contained in articles 2(1)(a), 3(a) and 3(b). Have
those been moved to the recitals, and will there be a reference to
official explanations of the legal status of the
charter?
Bridget
Prentice: I do not think that I can say much more than I
have said both in my opening remarks and in response to questions. We
see the charter as a political declaration and not as a legally binding
document. Negotiations are still continuing on references to the
charter. However, we have made our position very clear. We are clear
also that the agency’s remit should be one solely of Community
law, and that its role is advisory. We shall insist on any references
in the charter being accompanied by references to the legal status and
to the official explanations. I hope that that reassures the hon.
Gentleman that we are standing firm on the issue and that we do not
want the agency’s remit to extend beyond what I have already
described on a number of
occasions.
Mr.
Bellingham: It certainly looks as though Britain may have
to use its veto, given how things are
going. I turn to the
programme on fundamental rights, about which we have had little
discussion so far. Its specific objectives, set out on page 41, are
wide-ranging and will be costly. What will be the exact relationship
between the programme and the fundamental rights agency? What will the
programme cost, or will the money come out of the FRA’s
budget?
Bridget
Prentice: The relationship between the programme and the
agency is an important issue. The programme will focus on promoting
fundamental rights in the European Union, while the agency will focus
on monitoring fundamental rights issues in Community law. The
Commission is charged with minimising the risk of duplication between
the programme and the agency, and will have a representative on the
management and executive boards. Other institutional mechanisms will
also minimise duplication; for example, a co-operation agreement will
be concluded between the EU and the Council of Europe.
The programme will have its
own budget, separate from that of the agency. I understand that it will
be between €50 million and €98 million—that is,
between £31 million and £61 million
approximately.
Mr.
Cash: In September, an ICM poll indicated that 72
per cent. of British people believe that the national veto should be
retained for EU decision making in this and parallel areas. Can the
Minister answer this simple question? Given that fundamental rights
issues include racism and xenophobia—whatever that second word
means—would the Minister say that the Muslim community will have
the fundamental right to insist on sharia law at the expense of United
Kingdom law?
Bridget
Prentice: The short answer to that last question is
no.
Mr.
Fraser: May I return to budgets, about which my hon.
Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk has just asked? Page 28
clearly states that the EU Court of Auditors will look at the
agency’s provisional accounts. Given that the Court of Auditors
has failed to sign off the Commission’s overall accounts for the
past dozen years, how can we have any confidence that the agency will
take any notice of it?
Bridget
Prentice: It would not be fair to compare the agency with
the Commission at this stage. The board will be set up; it will have
its budget and be subject to the Court of Auditors, and rightly so. I
hope that it will follow appropriately the advice and rules of the
Court of Auditors. It would not be fair to condemn an organisation that
has not yet been established on the basis of what has happened
elsewhere in the
past.
Simon
Hughes: On several occasions, the Minister has
said—and it is clearly true—that the agency is intended
to deal only with matters of Community law and not others. I understand
that in terms of the link between European Union law, for which the
final adjudication is made by the European Court of Justice in
Luxembourg, and human rights law across Europe, in respect of which the
court is the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, it is now
the case that not only do individual states have an obligation to the
ECHR because they are signatories, but the European Union is also bound
by ECHR law, as are all its institutions. Am I right, therefore, in
thinking that it will not be the job of this agency to oversee
compliance or issues to do with the compliance of European Union
agencies—the Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the
Commission—with the European convention on human rights and all
the rights that are set out in that
convention?
Bridget
Prentice: The hon. Gentleman is correct that it will not
be the role of the agency to oversee those issues. The agency’s
role will be to monitor and to offer guidance. More fundamentally, I
need to correct him in that—as I understand it—the
European Union is not bound by the ECHR, and therefore the agency would
not fall into that category.
Mr.
Cash: Will the Minister tell us—in light of what
the Prime Minister has said regarding the extension of the detention
period in relation to control orders for terror suspects—whether
the Government’s view is that that would be a breach of
fundamental rights, or would she prefer the period to stay at 28
days?
Bridget
Prentice: I am not sure that I want at this stage to get
into a debate about 28 days. The hon. Gentleman will know, if he looks
at Hansard, that when we did debate the issue, I voted for a
period of detention much longer than 28 days. Given the opportunity, I
would almost certainly do so again. As I have said on a number of
occasions, the agency does not have a third pillar role. Therefore, I
do not see a connection between what we are doing in terms of terrorism
and our own security, and the agency’s monitoring
role.
Mr.
Fraser: On page 31, I see that the European Monitoring
Centre on Racism and Xenophobia is going to be subsumed into the new
agency. I know that its current term of office will terminate
on 31 December. How many of its staff will be taken on by the
new agency and will any of them be made redundant? If so, what will
those redundancies
cost?
Bridget
Prentice: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman detailed
figures on redundancies, should there be any. I am not aware at the
moment that that is to be the case,
but I can say what I said earlier: transitional arrangements will be
made, and I expect them to be made in such a way that they comply with
good employment practice. Everything that he has asked about will be
determined by the transitional arrangements, which are being discussed
almost as we speak.
Simon
Hughes: There has been a question about the fundamental
rights and citizenship programme. It is described in notes as being
part of the more general fundamental rights and justice programme,
which already exists. Why do we need a second programme? Why cannot the
job be done by the existing
programme?
Bridget
Prentice: I have outlined the role of the programme, but I
agree that we did not spend as much time on that as we did on the
agency. There is room for another programme to consider some of the
issues. I repeat that it is important not to have duplication where
that might be a temptation, but we should ensure that the programme has
a separate role. As part of a bigger fundamental rights and justice
organisation, it is, in a sense, additional to rather than instead of
the present programme. The two can work together and in parallel. As I
pointed out earlier, the role of the MOU and the opening up of lines of
communication between the different institutions in Europe are an
important part of ensuring that the new agency and the programme work
well with existing
bodies. 5.30
pm
The
Chairman: Order. Questions would normally be finished
after one hour, but it is open to the person in the Chair under
Standing Order No. 119(7) to extend question time to ensure that all
hon. Members who want to ask questions can do so if the Chairman takes
the view that the matter under discussion is important and should be
subject to the scrutiny that comes from the asking of questions. In the
light of that, I will allow question time to continue for another five
minutes.
| 
