|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 519-ii House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE EUROPEAN SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION'S ANNUAL POLICY STRATEGY FOR 2008
Wednesday 4 July 2007 MR JIM MURPHY MP, MR ANTHONY SMITH and MS SHAN MORGAN Evidence heard in Public Questions 65 - 94
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the European Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday 4 July 2007 Members present Michael Connarty, in the Chair Mr David S Borrow Mr William Cash Mr James Clappison Ms Katy Clark Jim Dobbin Nia Griffith Mr David Heathcoat-Amory Kelvin Hopkins Angus Robertson Mr Anthony Steen Richard Younger-Ross _______________ Witnesses: Mr Jim Murphy MP, Minister for Europe, Mr Anthony Smith, Director of European Political Affairs, and Ms Shan Morgan, Director of the EU, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, gave evidence. Q65 Chairman: Welcome, Minister. We are very grateful to you for maintaining the programme that we had set for your predecessor. Maybe you will want to introduce your officials? Mr Murphy: Shan Morgan is the director of the EU in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Anthony Smith is the director of European political affairs in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Q66 Chairman: We know you have studied the brief but you have two senior advisers with you. If at any time you wish them to participate in the evidence session we would be most happy for them to do so. We have been taking evidence on the Annual Policy Strategy document which of course is the document that the EU Commission sent out as an indication of what will become, when it is finalised, the annual work programme for the next year. It is the first time that the Committee have decided to try to get that far ahead of the process of directive making, regulation making and other matters coming from the EU. We have shared it with the chairs of all the other select committees and we have taken evidence from people from outwith the government and we obviously want to hear the government's opinion on the Annual Policy Strategy document. The second part of our business is to look at the conclusions of the European Council which have been the subject of a statement of the Prime Minister on the floor of the House but continue to be of great interest to this Committee and to those who are interested in the relationship between the British government and the EU. Can we start with the Annual Policy Strategy document section of our interest? How useful a document is the Annual Policy Strategy for the UK government? Mr Murphy: Thank you for your kind words and your welcome. We think it is a very useful document because it does set out a snapshot of what has been sought to be achieved over the year. It comes out of the Commission strategic objectives, the five year plan of work. In a dynamic which the Committee will be well are of in great detail, the dynamic of negotiations and European politics, what it helps to do from my looking at it over the past few days is to keep the Commission on track. There is a plan of work that is intended to last for that year and it can, if it operates effectively, prevent drift and endless new initiatives dominating a new weekly agenda. On that basis I think it is a positive thing. Q67 Chairman: The previous European Minister, Geoff Hoon, who is now the Chief Whip, described the Annual Policy Strategy document when he went to the Lords before a Lords Committee, so it is on the record, as an aspirational document. What is the value of an aspirational document and would it be better to link the policy ambitions in the policy strategy to the budgetary resources allocated to them to make it more than aspirational? Mr Murphy: It would be a good idea as a Minister new in this job to agree with the now Chief Whip. On the specific about it being an aspirational document, my sense of how it works is that it is published; there is a period of conversation; Member States offer their observations and it is open to a degree of flexibility in its formulation. In that sense I think it is fair to describe it as aspirational, certainly at its point of initiation. There is probably a case to be made as to whether it can be more closely aligned with the budgeting round, but the budget does take account of the APS. Most of the budget is spending commitments that are inherited across years rather than initiated in a new year. That is the proper alignment in terms of the budget. Q68 Jim Dobbin: Welcome to your new post, Minister. I hope you have a long and prosperous career. Do you think the Commission initiatives match the priorities that the UK government would really like to see pursued during 2008? Mr Murphy: Thank you for your welcome. It gives me an opportunity to continue a shared European aspiration that both Mr Dobbin and myself have in terms of our affection for a football club from Glasgow in Europe. I am hoping to last longer in the job than our football team does in the UK Champions' League anyway. In terms of whether it matches our aspirations and priorities, in a series of important ways it does. We have concerns and we will work through our concerns with the Commission but the heightened importance of the environmental agenda is really very important for the UK government. The focus on international sustainable development is positive, as is the focus on better regulation. I used to be a better regulation minister in the Cabinet Office and it was difficult to finish a full speech on better regulation when the audience were still awake, and that was not just because of the way I delivered it. It is a really important agenda for our domestic economy and for Europe's economy. I think the assessment from the Commission is that it can contribute over 1% of growth as a consequence of better regulation. That agenda of better regulation and flexible labour markets is really in tune with what the UK would wish to see as part of the APS. Q69 Mr Cash: The question that worries a number of us is the question whether there are any initiatives which ring alarm bells. There are questions, for example, as to why it appears that in this Annual Policy Strategy there is no reference to a mandate, which appears to be unprecedented, attempting to bind the Member States, which one would have expected to see in this sort of document. We have not seen it before and it has never been acted upon before. Is there an undisclosed document, which I am given to understand there is, which purports to bind the British government behind the scenes which has not yet been released? Mr Murphy: This will be the first of our many conversations about these issues. Chairman: I am trying to clarify. I am not quite sure whether ----? Mr Cash: I am concerned about the fact that under the Annual Policy Strategy ---- Chairman: Rather than the IGC? I thought the two were merging into one. We will come to that. Mr Cash: I think the question relates to whether or not in the Annual Policy Strategy you would have expected to have seen a mandate which related to the manner in which questions relating to the IGC would be conducted. Q70 Chairman: Is there a document that links the Annual Policy Strategy document to the IGC in a binding way? Mr Murphy: Not that I am aware of. If there is, I will come back to Mr Cash. Q71 Chairman: On this question of alarm bells, the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality which are mentioned in the Annual Policy Strategy document, does the government have a view as to how that should be dealt with? Is that an alarm bell area for the government? Mr Murphy: As you know, we remain absolutely committed to the principle of subsidiarity. In the APS there are two or three issues where we are not convinced that the Commission's competence is maintained. We will continue to press. We may discuss this in more detail but there is the issue about the dreadfully titled CCCTB, the Common Consultative Corporate Tax Base. There are issues about consular assistance and about an EU wide database on fingerprinting. Those are some of the issues where in terms of the APS we think we have some work still to do. Q72 Chairman: Do you hear the quiet ringing of alarm bells somewhere off in the future? Mr Murphy: I think we can get to a position where we can silence those alarm bells by proper negotiation. Q73 Kelvin Hopkins: Congratulations on your appointment as Europe Minister. I hope we will have many debates in the coming months and years. During the inquiry there has been obviously some debate about what the policy strategy is for but also how it should be developed in the future. A number of commentators have argued that the Commission should take a more strategic role, setting the direction for the EU. Article 4 of the Treaty on the European Union says, "The European Council shall provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development and shall define the general political guidelines thereof." Is there a hint that the Commission is seeking to aggrandise even more power to itself than it already has? Should we not be ringing alarm bells and suggesting that, however tenuous, the European Council at least has some democratic status? Mr Murphy: Thank you for your welcome. Certainly we would not wish to see competence creep on behalf of the Commission. The first part of your question was how should the APS develop. In time to come - and there is an element of this in this version - there should be focus on delivering some of the things that we have spoken about for a prolonged period rather than generating a whole set of new ideas. There has been some debate - I have read some material about this - about how does the Commission communicate better its work, successes and everything else. My sense is that it is not just a communication issue; it is about delivery. No amount of communication can offset any failings in delivery. Therefore, across the EU, we have to deliver on the issues that are important to us: better regulation, flexible labour markets, a dynamic economy, issues of the environment, international development. It is delivery that will lead communication. It is a perception that Europe is delivering that will lead to people's perceptions of Europe changing. You cannot communicate a positive message unless delivery is strong. There has been progress in recent years but we can go further. Q74 Kelvin Hopkins: That is a fair point but our new Prime Minister in a very welcome statement yesterday suggested that we ought in Britain to have more openness in debate about our future, more power, more status for the legislature as against the executive. Would this not do well in Europe as well with a much more open discussion amongst democratically elected people, perhaps a European Parliament, perhaps prime ministers, about the future of Europe, rather than behind closed doors in the Commission? Mr Murphy: You will correct me if I am wrong. We have seen an extension of codecision in recent years which is welcome. When we get to the point of the agenda where we are talking about the IGC and the reform treaty, there are important changes there in terms of greater power for the first time ever for Member State parliaments. There have been some positive steps. I listened to Alan Johnson and others about what more they think can be done in this field. Without getting into the detail of every announcement, there was a very strong sense of greater say for citizens in some of the things the new Prime Minister spoke about yesterday. Q75 Kelvin Hopkins: Will you personally be doing your best to make sure that the European Union is as democratic as possible and that we do not see this bureaucratic creep that is hinted at here? Mr Murphy: We have to be conscious of where there may be an agenda to go further than we should. We have to be vigilant about that. I have mentioned three already in terms of the APS where we are not convinced that they should be contained within the APS. Q76 Chairman: It does seem to me that we could either interpret the Annual Policy Strategy document as the European Commission trying to determine the political direction of the EU, or we could see it as a bottom up process whereby things come through from pressure groups, Member States, external lobbyists. We also know that there are individual Commissioners who have their own ambitions. What is the government's view of this present Annual Policy Strategy document and also exactly what should the balance be between the EU Commission giving a clear, political direction - in other words, so we know what they are intending to do - or having an Annual Policy Strategy document as aspirational, a list of all good things that may or may not go into the work programme? What is the balance to be struck? What participation in this do you think the UK government should have? What democratic involvement should there be from both the Parliament and outside bodies? Mr Murphy: This is the view of someone who has been in the job now for three full days. My sense is that Europe does not need more aspiration. It needs more delivery. That is about agreeing a set of priorities and doing our best collectively to stick to them. The APS process coming out of five year strategic objectives, is the way of doing that. If we were to get rid of the APS process, which I know you are not advocating, or the strategic objectives process, the Commission and the process generally would be subject to prevailing winds of contemporary sentiment that would blow it off course in terms of things that are important for the UK. They are important to our constituents in all sorts of different ways. Q77 Mr Clappison: You have my sympathy in getting to grips with the complexities of Europe in three days. I would like to ask about one important issue on the political direction of the Commission. I think you would agree there is an important change which has been envisaged in the role of the European Foreign Affairs Commissioner in that his role has been merged with that of the European Union's Higher Representative to create a new, institutional figure. How would you see that working? Mr Murphy: What I see it as absolutely not being is the UK surrendering its responsibility and power on foreign policy. This is about a Higher Representative who will speak for the EU on areas where there is common purpose and common policy. It is not someone who will generate a foreign policy for the EU. It is not someone who would speak outside the competence of an agreed position by Member States. I very much welcome it. I think it will lead to more effective articulation of a policy where there is an agreed policy. Let us remember this policy is based on unanimity. Q78 Mr Clappison: It is in effect a foreign minister, is it not, who is representing the EU rather than having an EU Commissioner and a Higher Representative with two different roles? Mr Murphy: It combines the functions of the two different people who are there currently. Q79 Mr Clappison: Given that the EU will now have a legal personality, the Foreign Minister will be able to conclude treaties, will he not, on behalf of the EU or the EU will be able to conclude treaties? Mr Murphy: The EC has had a legal personality for many years. In preparing for today, there are all sorts of things to read and I had read that this person would take the UK seat at the Security Council and all sorts of other things. That is not the case. Chairman: I did say to the Minister that we would have two distinct areas of interest. We are talking about the Annual Policy Strategy document and we are now wandering quite far into the conclusions of the Council. Would you mind holding the questions until we get to that point? 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 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. |