Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-64)
MR NEIL
O'BRIEN
9 MAY 2007
Q60 Mr Borrow: The APS talks about
strengthening cooperation between Member States through EUROJUST,
and I notice in your document you have made some critical comments
about a possible expansion of the role of EUROJUST. I wonder if
you could explain to the Committee if you accept that there is
additional work that EUROJUST could be doing, or is the current
situation as far as EUROJUST should actually go?
Mr O'Brien: Two different things,
I think, really. One is, I think, a fair point. The President
of EUROJUST says that he feels it is under-used at the moment
given its existing powers, and I think that is probably fair—there
is no reason it should not be used more given its existing powers—but
then there is a second thing, which is the thing we are being
critical of here, which is that they talk in the APS about an
investigating and prosecuting role, and the President of EUROJUST
has talked about how it wants to take part in investigations and
prosecute. Anything that takes it in the direction of running
prosecutions, I think, is quite questionable, because that is
about trying to move towards a European prosecutor by the back
door, and I think that does pretty fundamentally conflict with
the system that we have got here, which is driven by the accountability
of the Attorney General to this place.
Q61 Mr Borrow: So you would generally,
in principle, be in favour of steps which would increase the use
made of EUROJUST under the existing regulations, if that ended
up as a better outcome than using it, but you would not be in
favour of actually increasing the powers of EUROJUST in any significant
way?
Mr O'Brien: Exactly.
Q62 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Your organisation
is called Open Europe. Does this mean a Europe open to the world
or learning from the world: in which case you might have a comment
upon a specific proposal in the Strategy to set up a European
Institute of Technology. This seems to me to hark back to a previous
world where centralisation and control by one institute organisation
was the way forward. Would you comment on any contrast between
this strategy for a competitive Europe and perhaps what the rest
of the world has to teach us by way of flat systems and decentralisaiton?
Mr O'Brien: Yes, I think I completely
agree with the thrust of your question. This is a slightly populist
Barroso pet project. One of the previous speakers talked about
how everything the Commission proposed was part of the desire
of the Member States. This is the exact counter example, because
no matter how much Member States say they do not want this thing,
it just will not lie down and die. Even just thinking about what
it involves, instead of trying to improve the existing European
universities, this is a proposal to try and set up a parallel
structure, which was originally going to be a campus and now is
turning into some kind of network of European universities, and
it is not clear that this is a good use of tax-payers' money at
all. This is about the Commission trying to show that it is adding
value, but I am not convinced that the proposal does add any value.
Q63 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: Will we have
a veto on this? It is our money, after all?
Mr O'Brien: I should know the
answer to that, but I do not. Not necessarily, I do not think.
I am afraid I do not know the answer.
Q64 Chairman: Can I thank you both
for your submission, Mr O'Brien, and for your answers, which I
have found very, very interesting and helpful. Can I just pass
back to you some advice. We have sent the Annual Policy Strategy
Document to every Select Committee Chairman, because we rely on
the departmental committees actually looking at what is coming
from Europe much earlier and calling in the Government ministers
to ask them what the Government position is as they are forming
it, and it may be what you see as an omission on the part of what
is a very hardworking and overburdened committee and actually
being the gatekeepers could be relieved quite a bit by select
committees deciding that there were certain issues coming from
Europe that they would have to interrogate the Government on much
more closely than this Committee could ever do, despite our very
full agenda. You might want to bear that in mind: because I noticed
a number of specific policies and every time I saw them I thought:
"Which departmental committee should this have been referred
to?", rather than to a general scrutiny committee, and it
may improve all of our lives and make us much happier with the
process of scrutiny. Thank you for your submission and for your
answers. If you wish to write back on anything to the Committee
or, in fact, maybe to individual members who have seen this report,
for certain proposals, you are most welcome to do so.
Mr O'Brien: Thank you very much
for having me.
|
