Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-94)
MR JIM
MURPHY MP, MR
ANTHONY SMITH
AND MS
SHAN MORGAN
4 JULY 2007
Q80 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: The strategy
document refers to the importance of relations with Africa but
it wishes to pursue economic partnership agreements with African
countries. As you will know from comments from the development
and aid lobby, these are highly unsatisfactory because of their
rules of origin. A lot of the manufactured products in these countries
can be better, more easily exported to the United States than
to the European Union. Our record of trade from these poor countries
is truly appalling. I am ashamed that we have such a restrictive
trade policy towards some of the poorest people in the poorest
countries in the world but we can do nothing about it because
we do not of course control our trade policy. Could you comment
on the British attitude towards trying to change this and not
accept this paragraph in the EU strategy document which simply
refers to striving for these economic partnership agreements with
all their restrictions, which no doubt you are familiar with?
Mr Murphy: The government is committed
to freer trade. We try where we can through negotiations to break
down some of the barriers, to remove some of the tariffs, some
of the protectionist approaches. Some of these things, as you
are well aware from your time in the House, are much easier spoken
about than achieved. We are absolutely committed to doing all
we can through all the international fora to give the opportunity.
That sounds almost charitable. It is not intended to be charitable.
It is to enable these states to stand on their own two feet through
the dignity of producing products and being able to trade in a
free market. I think there is now a commonality of understanding
that these countries will not lift themselves out of their grinding
poverty through aid. We remain committed to trying to break down
some of these tariffs and to enabling these countries and their
citizens to trade on an equal footing.
Q81 Mr Heathcoat-Amory: All you have
done is to confirm how powerless we are. We are the fifth biggest
economy in the world. Is it not an embarrassment that we can do
nothing practical to help these countries except hope that the
Trade Commissioner can persuade other Member States to lower their
barriers or to get off this terrible drive towards economic partnership
agreements which are even more restrictive, even if they succeed,
than what the United States is doing? They are not clean in their
record towards the developing world. Is this not really a council
of despair? All you can tell us is that you are going to do your
best. Surely you have active diplomacy here to make this a priority
because we are dealing here with people who are desperately poor,
who look on the European Union as simply a rich man's club, and
you are just simply going along with it.
Mr Murphy: I do not think that
is true at all. We are not going along with it. This government
has made remarkable progress in supporting the developing world
in a way that no government of either political party at any point
in our history has managed to achieve in terms of our aid budget
in particular. The aid is not in itself the whole solution. Better
democracy, greater accountability, reduction of corruption, a
free press, all of those issues of good governance are important
and we press on those as well. We remain absolutely committed
to the Doha development round. It is a different approach to international
trade than at any time in our recent historic past. While there
is an awful lot still to do, of course, I can refute absolutely
the allegation that there is any sort of complacency or powerlessness.
Long term sustained development and reduction of poverty are at
the core of what we are trying to achieve through these negotiations.
Q82 Angus Robertson: Minister, welcome
to your responsibilities. Moving on to the role of national parliaments,
in the context of the APS process, what do you and the government
see as the role of national parliaments in this kind of debate?
Mr Murphy: National parliaments'
formal role is to offer a sense of where they agree with the content
of the APS, to where we disagree, to offer an assessment as to
why, whether it is on the principle of subsidiarity or whether
it is in the practise of the undesirability of a specific proposal;
or in the sense that we just disagree with the content or the
direction of a specific policy. There is a really strong role
for national parliaments to influence the APS process. I have
alluded to two or three where we still have a job to do.
Q83 Angus Robertson: In the use of
the word "we" are you talking about the government or
Parliament? What I am trying to get to the bottom of specifically
is the role that you see for national parliaments. It is this
Committee that holds ministers to account, like yourself today,
for the position that you adopt in the Council. How do you view
the Commission's emphasis on closer contact with national parliaments?
Mr Murphy: It is welcome. I do
not want to go into the second part of the agenda but there are
some important changes there. If you ask me whether I believe
there is a role for national parliaments or the House of Commons
or the House of Lords, I think it is for all of them. I say that
as someone who has spent many hours on European Standing Committees
A, B and C. There is a challenge for us all as parliamentarians.
Maybe it is not appropriate for me to say this but I remember
going to European Standing Committees A, B and C for two years.
Others may have intermittently been on these committees but the
challenge was not to douse the sense of excitement or reduce the
temperature of the debate. It was to have a quorum so that we
could have a debate. We can have a wider conversation as to why
that is the case. Nevertheless, it has been the case. It may have
changed since I used to go to meetings. It may be so much better
but I do not receive many reports about it having improved. There
is a challenge for all of us about how we mainstream more within
the parliamentary democratic system of European scrutiny. This
Committee plays a phenomenal part in that, I know, but in terms
of A, B and C there was previously a suggestion about a European
Standing Committee D. I think we should have A, B and C fixed
before we get to D, E and F.
Q84 Mr Cash: There was a distinct
pause in your answer to the question and I can understand why.
The role of the national parliaments has now been significantly
reduced and, as we will come onto in relation to the IGC, they
are even imposing legal duties on the national parliaments. With
regard to the supremacy of this Parliament, we regard it as absolute.
Unfortunately, the European Communities Act 1972 has invaded that
to a very considerable extent. You refer to Standing Committees
A, B and C but if any decision was to be taken in those Standing
Committees which cut across the provisions in the European Communities
Act which say that we have to accept whatever comes out of majority
voting in the European Union, for example, immediately we know
from experience all governments recently, including particularly
this government, despite the Prime Minister saying we want more
power for Parliament yesterday, reverses any decision taken in
Standing Committee A, B and C, irrespective of the views of that
committee. I have been on that committee when that has happened
and it has been reversed. It is not just to do with a quorum;
it is to do with the fact that you can hardly expect people to
find it very interesting if it is just no more than a talking
shop. When you are asked the question by my colleague, "What
do you see as the role of national parliaments?", do you
not agree that it is time that as and when, for example in relation
to the burdens on business or many other matters, Westminster
on behalf of the electors of this country make a decision that
they want to have certain kinds of legislation, that should prevail
over European legislation and the national parliaments should
be restored to the proper democratic role that they should have?
Mr Murphy: We will come to some
of the issues about the negotiation there has been over the reform
treaty a little later in our hearing. The reason for my pause
is not about some of the points you raise in recent history. These
As, Bs and Cs were not a talking shop because there was very little
talking. That is the truth of it. I am making an observation,
not a criticism or a recommendation, about the way in which we
all in Parliament are very comfortable about having a dialogue
about how we can mainstream more the European issues within the
House of Commons and the House of Lords. All I was offering was
an experience of a couple of years of sitting on those committees,
often twice a week for two or three hours at a time, and it not
being as effective as it should have been. I am not apportioning
blame.
Mr Cash: Do you believe the legislative
supremacy—
Chairman: Mr Cash, I think you have asked
the question.
Mr Cash: I have not had an answer.
Q85 Mr Borrow: We have touched on
the way the government is involved in consultation on the APS.
I would be grateful if you could explain to the Committee exactly
how the government is involved in those discussions both formally
and informally. We have also had examples where the APS has included
items that we were not happy with. Are there items in the APS
in which you would see the UK government as a leading player?
Mr Murphy: As someone who has
looked at it for a longer period than I have, you will have your
own sense on this but my sense is that that five year forward
look is helpful as to where the Commission believes it is going.
This annual APS process is an opportunity for Member States to
influence each individual slot of that plan. Through multilateral
and bilateral contact, we try and influence the APS as close to
the UK government priorities as possible. I have alluded to a
number of areas where we do have concerns and we will continue
to focus on those concerns, particularly the issues I mentioned
earlier. In terms of where we have been successful, we have been
successful in raising the profile of environmental issues, sustainable
development issues and Doha. We have been effective in a way that
surprised many across the EU on better regulation. Barroso's response
and his genuine interest in the way in which they have tried to
drive a sense of a lighter touch of EU regulation is important.
We have a huge distance to travel but I understand there is an
agenda for cutting Euro admin burdens by about 25% over seven
years. In the context where Europe, for some commentators, became
synonymous with a one way drive towards ever more admin burdens,
this sense of radically reducing the level of admin burdens in
that period of time would be unthinkable a few short years ago.
It is now part of the accepted settlement of what should happen.
That is a really concrete example of where we have succeeded.
Q86 Chairman: Those of us who have
studied it very closely have probably found the Verheugen declaration
much more aspirational than delivery if you count the number of
directives or regulations that have been taken off the statute
book and their impact. We do notice that instead of doing about
1,600 documents a year at the moment we are doing about 1,200
so maybe there has been some diminution. On your aspirations for
more mainstreaming, this Committee has asked for a number of matters
to be taken up by the Liaison Committee and the Cabinet Office
about mainstreaming, particularly the fact that the government
did not until we suggested it send Green Papers, White Papers
or other consultative documents from Europe to the select committees
of the House. They sent them to everyone outside but somehow ignored
the very organisations within the House that were supposed to
give the opinion of Parliament. Maybe that will be an improvement
in mainstreaming in the future.
Mr Murphy: Has that now been rectified?
Chairman: It has now been accepted by
the Cabinet Office that they will send Green Papers and White
Papers to the appropriate select committees. We have sent the
Annual Policy Strategy document and asked for comments from all
select committee chairs in this inquiry that is taking place at
the moment.
Q87 Mr Cash: You mentioned Mr Barroso
and his objectives. He talks about putting more emphasis on achieving
results. You mentioned burdens on business, for example, and the
Chairman referred to the number of directives. Mr Verheugen also
has indicated the extent to which it costs British business. I
think the figure was many, many billions of pounds a year. I think
he mentioned 60 billion a year which seemed to me to be astonishing,
but apparently that is what gets quoted. How can it possibly be
the case that the Commission can claim that they are achieving
results when the actual impact, for example, on the Lisbon Agenda
et cetera, is crushed by this unbelievable cost and burden
on business, which I would say we should reverse using our own
powers here at Westminster and override the European regulations.
Mr Murphy: I am not aware of the
specific figure. By the way in which you put the question, I have
no sense that you have a specific figure today. We both know that
because it is quoted that does not make it any more precise.
Q88 Mr Cash: It comes from Mr Verheugen.
Mr Murphy: As a fair minded observer
of these things, Mr Cash, in the way you use language like "crushed",
the point is a serious one. There has been progress in moving
the Commission on this. The UK used its presidency to raise the
profile of going much further on better regulation. I remember
the conversation at the time: should we not set up something more
aspirational?
Q89 Chairman: The Barroso Commission
say that they are going to put emphasis on implementation and
achieving results. What evidence is there to show that the Commission
is delivering more? What benchmarks or tools does the UK government
use to make that judgment? That is of fundamental interest to
the British people.
Mr Murphy: People did say at the
time, "Why not do something that is a good deal more imaginative
and inspiring, that connects with issues that people are demonstrating
over in the streets?" We took a decision that better regulation
was so fundamental to our own economy and to that of European
competitiveness and we put that front and centre of our priorities
in our presidency. We managed, along with some allies, to turn
it round. There has been some progress, although not enough yet.
In terms of the regulations on food hygiene, company law, transport
and agriculture, we need to go a good deal further. How the UK
assesses this is through the Better Regulation Executive and the
Better Regulation Commission. I think I am right in saying that
there is a unit there that specifically focuses on interaction
with the Commission and importantly with the European Parliament
in terms of the parliamentary pressure for more and greater regulation.
There is some way to go but we are making tentative progress on
delivery. Behind the delivery now there is a genuine, political
will to deliver on this.
Q90 Jim Dobbin: On the issue of common
policy on migration, page six of the Annual Policy Strategy says
that in 2008 the Commission will propose further steps towards
a common policy on migration and measures to achieve a common
European asylum system by 2010. What is the government's view
of these proposals for example on labour migration?
Mr Murphy: Our view is that the
economic analysis of free movement of people and the A8 states,
the accession states minus Romania and Bulgaria, has been in an
economic and a labour market sense largely positive. There are
other issues. The evidence is that most of the migrants who have
come in recent years since accession have filled shortages in
the labour market across the different skills. Counter intuitively,
we all look at our own constituencies and can see and hear a Polish
waiter or waitress. I have tortured the evidence on this but the
evidence is—it is counter intuitive and flies in the face
of your anecdotal sense—that it has had no impact on the
levels of people and UK business being able to get into the labour
market. Equally it has not had any significant impact on the number
of people coming off benefit. If you look to the two areas where
migration has been most concentrated, London and East Anglia—London
MPs and MPs in East Anglia will know much more about what is happening
on the ground than I will—there has not been a consequential
slowing down of the number of people coming off benefit that would
be connected to displacement caused by migration. In terms of
the proposals in the APS, the UK government retains its opt in.
Where it makes sense to co-operate, we will, but we have an opt
in arrangement so if we wish to participate we can.
Q91 Chairman: Would you say the government
still takes the position that asylum and legal migration go to
the heart of national sovereignty and therefore should be defended
because of the consequences of people's views or the government's
view on our real intention towards national sovereignty?
Mr Murphy: I think it is an important
issue of sovereignty. In saying that we have to be clear that
that does not reduce the benefit of us co-operating across national
boundaries. That is what we have been doing over recent years.
We will continue to do so where it makes sense. On the basis of
an opt in we will do on this issue what is in the UK national
interest. In the opening up of the labour market, it was our assessment
as a government that it was in the UK national interest to allow
the citizens of those eight accession states from eastern Europe
to play a full part in our labour market in a way that has been
borne out to have been a success. Other nations seem to be following
in that sense as well.
Q92 Mr Clappison: It is a question
of whether we are able to act in our national interests on this.
There are many debatable points about the effect of internal EU
migration within the existing members of the EU. Can I draw your
attention to the fact that this policy is referring to people
coming to the EU from outside the EU? It is talking about a common
migration and asylum policy for the EU. What implications do you
think this will have, particularly on asylum, where various issues
might mean that we want to act very much in our own interests?
Mr Murphy: It is in our national
interest to co-operate, for example, in preventing 50 people clinging
to a rickety board in the Mediterranean to escape through people
traffickers from north Africa into southern Europe. Those folk
do not stop at the port of disembarkation. They can make their
way through the countries of Europe and of course end up in the
United Kingdom. It is in our interest to co-operate across the
EU. It is an economic issue. It is a migration and asylum issue,
but it is a basic human decency and dignity issue as well. The
corruption of people traffickers and the way in which they transport
people as though they were products is an issue of common concern
across all parties in the House. It is in our interest where we
have expertise to assist and to co-operate where we can.
Q93 Mr Clappison: Can I respectfully
draw your attention to the fact that this is not just talking
about people trafficking. This is legal migration as a whole to
the EU, people arriving on planes quite legally to enter the EU
as part of an EU migration policy or people claiming asylum within
the EU. You rather make my point for me that this will have an
implication for this country.
Mr Murphy: I am just looking at
the specific point you raise. I am looking at the assessment in
response to the specific point that you have raised. It would
be unlikely that the UK would opt into the measures included within
this legal migration directive because it is not consistent with
our points based system but I will look more specifically into
that point.
Q94 Mr Borrow: You mentioned the
Common Consolidated Corporation Tax Base as one of the items that
the Commission were pushing in the APS for 2008. Do you not find
it odd that the Commission should push this given the strong opposition
of a significant number of EU Member States including the UK?
One would have expected the Commission to have had some sense
of where Member States were going and not try to push forward
proposals that were strongly opposed by a significant minority.
One would have expected them to have better things to do with
their time.
Mr Murphy: We do not believe that
a harmonised tax system as proposed within the APS is good for
competitiveness. We think it is wrong in principle and in practice
and we will continue to make that point very, very clearly to
the Commission.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
| 
