Mr.
Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chope. I can assure you
that this question is relevant. If the Minister went to page 140, I
would be grateful. It refers to the fundamental rights agency applying
to Gibraltar. Have the Government of Gibraltar been consulted? If so,
what is their response? What were their comments about that
consultation?
Bridget
Prentice: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to
give me his full attention now, as I reply to him, which he did not do
on a previous question. I almost paused to wait for him as I would do
in a classroom, but I chose not to at the
time.
Bridget
Prentice: Well, I might do yet. Gibraltar is obviously
going to be part of the agency; it will apply to Gibraltar. It has of
course been involved in the discussions. It would be nonsensical for
the agency to apply without there having been some communication with
the state concerned. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman in detail what
that consultation involved,
but I will ensure that I write to him with the details of exactly what
discussions have taken place with the Government of Gibraltar as
regards Gibraltar’s position within the
agency.
Mr.
Bellingham: Exactly what will happen to the EU network of
independent experts on fundamental rights? Will that be subsumed into
the agency? Also, will the EU gender equality initiative remain
free-standing or will it be taken on by the
agency?
Bridget
Prentice: It is my understanding that the network
will be involved with the agency. As far as the gender issue is
concerned, I am assured that it will remain separate, but the network
will be subsumed within the agency. As I understand it, the reason why
the gender institute will be kept separate is that although we would
have been interested in combining those things, that has not been the
case elsewhere in Europe and it has been accepted that therefore the
gender institute will remain a separate
organisation.
Simon
Hughes: I have one last question on people. The UK has a
right—a requirement—to nominate two independent people to
the agency. Has the decision been made yet as to who those people will
be, if the agency comes into operation in January? If so, can the
Minister tell us who they are? If not, when will the decision
be made and
announced?
Bridget
Prentice: It has not yet been decided who those people
will be, but I will ensure that the Committee is informed as soon as
the names are made available, as much as anything in order to underline
my earlier comments about keeping communications open among members of
this Committee and our members on the Council of Europe. I shall ensure
that members of the Committee are kept informed. We hope to have those
decisions made, but apparently we have some time. There are a couple of
months yet before we have to make the nominations. That is all part of
the transitional arrangement, but as soon as it happens, I will ask my
right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Ashton to ensure that both this
Committee and our colleagues who are members of the Council of Europe
are informed of all of that, so that people are aware of who the people
are who are taking over.
Several hon. Members
rose—
The
Chairman: I call Mr. Bellingham to ask the last
question.
Mr.
Bellingham: May I just go back to the matter of the EU
network of independent experts and to the gender equality initiative?
The Minister simply said that other EU countries did not support
Britain’s view but that it should be subsumed into the new
agency. However, she did not say why they were against it being
subsumed because it would surely make sense to have a one-stop
shop.
Bridget
Prentice: To some extent the hon. Gentleman and I are in
agreement on this. In the UK, we have set up a one-stop shop by merging
the equalities bodies into the Commission for Equality in Human Rights.
We see that as the sensible way forward. However, the rest of Europe
appears to be very keen on the gender institute. It is a decision that
is subject to and has been qualified by majority voting. Therefore it
has been agreed that there will be two different bodies.
It is important to emphasise
that it will be key that the two bodies work closely together and do
not duplicate work. We will push for strong co-ordination between the
two bodies so that they are both as effective as possible. I should say
that the director of the gender institute will be able to attend
meetings of the agency’s management board as an observer. We
might have preferred one body, however, as it was a QMV decision, we
have accepted that there will be two. Nevertheless, we will be keen to
ensure that they do work closely together.
The
Chairman: Order. That brings us to the end of the time
allotted to questions. I call the Minister to move the motion on the
order
paper. Motion
made, and Question
proposed, That
the Committee takes note of European Union Documents No. 10755/06,
draft Council Regulation establishing a European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights and draft Council Decision empowering the European
Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to pursue its activities in areas
referred to in Title VI of the Treaty of the European Union, and No.
13104/06, draft Council Decision establishing for the period 2007-2013
the specific programme 'Fundamental Rights and Citizenship' as part of
the general programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice'; notes that the
proposals aim at promoting knowledge of and respect for fundamental
rights in the European Union; and endorses the Government's policy of
support for the measures, taking account of its reservations on the
references to the Charter in the Fundamental Rights and Citizenship
Programme and the extension of the Fundamental Rights Agency's remit to
the third pillar.—[Ms.
Prentice.] 3.37
pm
Mr.
Bellingham: We have had a very interesting debate and
question session. I would like to thank the Minister for coming to this
Committee and standing in for her honourable colleague who could not be
here today. I am
concerned about the Government’s cavalier disdain for the
scrutiny process. When I asked the Minister that question about
overriding the scrutiny process, she said that she did not know whether
it had happened before and hinted that it may never have happened
before. I do find that extraordinary.
I would just like to say to
the Minister—I know that this is something that she is not
directly responsible for—that her Department has been fairly
cavalier in dealing with the European Scrutiny Committee. If one looks
at page 148, one sees a letter from the noble Baroness Ashton, dated 9
June 2006, in reply to a letter from the European Scrutiny Committee
dated 12 October 2005. The Minister
says: “I would
like to offer my sincere apologies for the delay in responding to your
note of 12 October informing me that the above document did not clear
scrutiny.” Talk about
compounding a crime and making it worse. I find that quite
extraordinary. We
have heard a lot today about the wasteful duplication of other bodies.
My hon. Friend the
Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser) was clear on that
point as was the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon
Hughes) who has a great deal of experience in those matters. There is going to be
duplication of the Council of Europe, the OSCE, a great deal of
duplication of the European Court of Human Rights and the human rights
commission of the Council of Europe and so it goes on. These are very
experienced bodies indeed. They have track records of success and have
delivered over many years. As the hon. Member for North Southwark and
Bermondsey pointed out, they have delivered substantial successes. That
is why I do not see any reason for the EU to set up a competing
organisation. I
refer the Minister and the Committee to a debate which took place in
Westminster Hall on 2 February 2005. There were two powerful
contributions. One was from our friend Kevin McNamara, the former
Member for Kingston upon Hull North, who is no Eurosceptic. In his
opening speech in that debate he said that the proposed fundamental
rights agency is, “a new
institution with a yet undefined role, vague powers and no statement of
its relationship to any of the existing institutions of the
Community” He went on to
say that “it is a
prospective gift for Eurosceptics”—[Official Report,
Westminster Hall, 2 February 2005; Vol. 430, c.
251WH.] Another
colleague of the Minister, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central,
spoke in that debate and said
that “we have a long
established and well tried system and structures for the delivery of
the culture of human rights and for monitoring the way in which those
rights are implemented—through the Strasbourg court, the human
rights commissioner of the Council of Europe ... there is no role
for the European Union in human rights”—[Official
Report, Westminster Hall, 2 February 2005; Vol. 430, c.
255WH.] The hon. Gentleman made
it very clear indeed that, along with other hon. Members, he felt very
strongly. My other
concern is very simple. In this country we have set up the Commission
for Equality and Human Rights and have a number of NGOs that work very
hard, such as Amnesty International. Have they failed to deliver to my
constituents and indeed to the constituents of the hon. Member for
Bournemouth, East? The answer is no they have not. This is a classic
case of EU mission creep, institutional creep, empire building and jobs
for the Eurocrats.
There is confusion over the
exact status of the proposal. We had a discussion about the third
pillar during which the Minister gave answers and I hope that the
Government remain firm on those and on the actual status of the
charter. I am not very optimistic about what the Minister said in terms
of moving references to the charter to the recitals. If one looks at
two fairly recent cases: the BECTU case and the ERTV.DEP case, which
both touched on various issues on fundamental rights taking precedence
over derogations, there is no question that the European Court of
Justice regards the fundamental rights charter as law and often refers
to it when passing judgments. There is a great deal of confusion that
has not been cleared up by the Minister so far—perhaps she will
do so in her closing speech.
There is also a lack of focus.
As well as conflicting with other bodies, there is a great deal of
confusion over what this agency will do. I certainly take the view that
we will have an agency and I hope that the Government will veto it
because it will be a completely useless and worthless organisation. If
we are going to have an agency, why not subsume it into other EU bodies
such as the EU network of independent experts on fundamental
rights—the Minister said it might be subsumed, but did not give
a definite reply. The Minister also said that the EU gender equality
initiative will remain a free-standing body. We should try and subsume
those organisations into this new agency in order to make it more
efficient because a great deal more money will be at
stake.
Mr.
Cash: I would not in any way wish to appear to be in
disagreement with my hon. Friend, but any idea of merging other EU
bodies into this completely fault-ridden institution seems highly
inappropriate. He quite rightly made a number of points about the
increase in the number of personnel and such things and my hon. Friend
the Whip, the Member for South-West Norfolk made a similar remark that
I also endorse. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental democratic problem
in moving the arrangements for the passerelle into majority voting. In
addition, the involvement of this entire package with titles dealing
with crime, immigration, justice and home affairs is fundamentally
undemocratic. We should be making our decision in this Committee, but
also on the Floor of the House with Westminster legislation and there
is absolutely no need for this
nonsense.
Mr.
Bellingham: I quite agree. My point was very simple: if we
are going to have this agency, and I hope that the Government vetoes it
as we will certainly vote against it, it does not make sense to have
other organisations that cost a great deal of money.
As far as remit and scope is
concerned, the agency will grow and will want to interfere a great deal
more and investigate individual complaints. It may also look at the
policies and practices in member states. If one looks at some of the
absurd, meaningless and vague Eurospeak in this set of documents, it
does not fill one with much confidence. As far as the programme for
fundamental rights is concerned, we discussed the costs and the budget
of the agency, which we have discovered will be €9 million plus
inflation for next year moving up to €29 million in 2013. The
document talks about a budget that will grow and activities that will
grow, but then we had an admission from the Minister that the programme
will cost a staggering €58 million. That is a programme that
will look at many different initiatives throughout Europe and will cost
a great deal of money. There has been all this uncertainty, and various
Ministers have said that they want to see Europe try to reduce
regulation. The Davidson review of the implementation of EU legislation
was published today, and showed that the regulatory burden on business
and individuals through gold-plating is increasing in this country. The
Chancellor made it clear at the CBI conference that he wanted to get
rid of gold-plating and red tape, but these proposals are moving in
exactly the opposite direction.
At a time when the UK has
fallen from fourth to tenth in the World Economic Forum competitiveness
league, the Government should look very closely at the creation of any
costly, unnecessary, extra bodies that will lead simply to the building
of empires, jobs for bureaucrats—in this case in
Vienna—and a few jobs for British bureaucrats. It will cost a
great deal of money, the people of this country will pay for it and our
constituents will not gain a single benefit, unless one takes the view
that the existing institutions in this country are totally useless. We
do not take that view, which is why I hope that the Government will use
their veto. In the meantime, I urge my hon. Friends to vote against
this
motion. 5.46
pm
Simon
Hughes: This matter is clearly inciting more interest than
some events in this Committee do and properly so, because it is
important business. The Government’s motion, on which we will be
asked to vote, supports the principle of an agency if certain
reservations are met in the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting.
One of those relates to the charter, the other to its non-appliance to
the third pillar issues. If conducted robustly, that is the sensible
position to take at the meeting next week.
My background is that of a
human rights lawyer. As I have indicated, I am supportive of those
agencies in Europe that have led the way in ensuring human rights
compliance throughout Europe. I repeat my belief that the Council of
Europe has done a pre-eminent job in that respect. As various parties
negotiate their way to supporting a bill of rights in the United
Kingdom, a concept which is becoming more popular across the political
spectrum, I hope that we can progress from the point at which we have
arrived, with the agreement that has given House-wide support to the
European convention for so
long. This proposal
has clearly taken a long time to reach this stage. I can see the
argument for having somebody within the European Union process who
checks that what the EU does is human rights-compliant; I quite
understand that, but is a separate agency needed to do it? If there is
a separate agency, must it be bigger and better than the current
organisation? Do you need the separate agencies to which the hon.
Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham)
referred? Let me deal
with the general propositions. I support the idea that somewhere in the
EU, somebody should do this job. My colleagues in the European
Parliament, like those in most parties there, have been very keen that
it should be a separate, fully fledged European agency. I know that we
are under some pressure from our European parliamentary colleagues to
support it as it stands. If we are to have a separate agency, it is
very important that it does an absolutely precise job, rather than
something—as is the nature of things—that grows and
grows, taking on jobs that are done elsewhere or should not be
done.
In this
place, two things happen when the Government come up with proposals.
The system does not have a separate, independent agency to make sure
that the Government apply human rights. Ministers are required to
certify that legislation is human rights-compliant. There may be an
argument for having a unit of
Government—for example, under the direction of law
officers—that should do that in an existing institution. Dealing
with human rights issues is currently done by a Joint Committee of both
Houses of Parliament, which produces a report that gives us our
steer. The principle
responsibility for ensuring compliance should remain with the European
Parliament, which should hold the European Council to account on human
rights matters. I appreciate that the European Parliament is not as
powerful vis-Ã -vis the Council of Ministers as our Parliament,
thank goodness, is relative to the Government. Our Government’s
proposals can be clearly defeated by Parliament.
I understand that we need an
agency elsewhere, but if we are to have such a thing, it should be
absolutely clear that its only job is to make sure that it gives public
advice as to the compatibility of EU agency’s activities with
European Union human rights treaties. The Minister was right to deal
with important but technical point that the European Union has signed
up collectively to compliance with human rights; that was what the
charter was for. The EU has said so in treaties without formally yet
being a subscriber to the European convention; it is on the agenda but
is not yet delivered, as I understand it.
The proposed agency should
have that very ring-fenced job. It should not be somewhere that starts
to pick up individual cases about compliance from individual people;
that would be entirely inappropriate. If people have complaints, we
need to address how human rights arguments are taken up by individuals.
The agency should make sure to limit itself to the European Union and
its institutions. If
the European Union eventually takes in all or nearly all European
countries, the proposal would have to be revised. By such a time, by
definition, if the member states of the Council of Europe are also
members of the EU, I would hope that the overarching Council of Europe
responsibility would apply to the EU’s internal work as it
applies to the national work of national institutions.
In relation to other
institutions such as the gender organisation, it seems to me that there
is an opportunity to make sure that, should the proposal go ahead, they
are put together. I understand the argument for separate initiatives,
but the logic is that we should try to merge organisations and give
them a common basis of personnel and so on. Otherwise, there is a
danger that on gender issues, for example, one group of people will be
arguing the perfectly valid case for women’s equality, but
arguments may start coming out of the agency as well. That would be an
unnecessary duplication.
| 
