Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
HUW IRRANCA-DAVIES
MP
11 FEBRUARY 2009
Q1 Chairman: Minister, can I say that
you are welcome to the Committee, despite the negative context,
and it is good to see you and personally I think it is good to
see you in a ministerial position. You have been assiduous, but
unfortunately you are answering for the faults of your Department,
whether that be the staff or ministers who preceded you, so we
are dealing with matters or over-rides which may be before your
time, but I am sure you know this is the context in which we meet
and we are obviously expecting you to answer for your Department.
Just to start off, we hope this will not be a particularly long
session. We receive requests from all departments for a scrutiny
over-ride from time to time, but there do appear to have been
a disproportionate number of these even within Defra itself arising
on fisheries documents. Can you offer us an explanation as to
why that is the case?
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Yes, Chairman, and thank you for those words of introduction.
I just want to say right at the outset that this is not something
we are going to hide from. There is an issue here of delivery
for the Committees. The Secretary of State and I do take this
issue very seriously and this is not the case of a boy standing
in front of his teacher and saying, "The big, black dog ran
off with my homework," sort of thing. We know that we have
got improvements to make, and perhaps I will come to those in
a moment. It does come against a backdrop—and certainly
I can say from my own experience in terms of fishery negotiations
through the autumn—where it is a hurly-burly, where it was
described to me, when I first came into the post, as "white
water rafting blindfold" and certainly whilst there have
been improvements in some of the aspects this year from the fisheries
side with some early notice of some aspects of the Commission's
way forward, and so on, other aspects have actually been right
up to the wire, as per normal. So it is against that backdrop,
but I said right at the outset that we would not hide from this.
We are not satisfied with the performance. We think we have an
improvement to make, and we think we have ways to make that improvement,
albeit against that backdrop. What we will be doing—in fact,
Chairman, I am sorry for the lateness of this but I thought it
would be better to deliver this personally rather than send it
through—I have something of an update to hand to you on
the outstanding cases which have been mentioned and in fact as
of this morning, when I signed this letter off, there has been
improvement, which I will bring you to in a moment.
Chairman: I can assure you, you will
be given a chance to elaborate on that, so you might as well hold
onto your piece of paper for the moment.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you,
Chairman. What we are intending to do in future, recognising the
schedules you work to and which our officials work to as well,
is that we are going to every single month circulate a table of
overdue cases, of every single overdue case, to all the directors,
to all the private offices, to ensure that they take accountability
for meeting the deadlines, and if there are any overdue to initiate
action to deal with those cases. I do know and it would be unfair
to officials not to say that there is a myriad of circumstances,
not least to do with the nature of some of the European negotiations,
why sometimes there are delays, but the performance can definitely
be improved and we think one way to do it is to make sure that
all our officials, private officer and directors are aware of
their responsibilities and are held accountable through actually
saying, "Show us, every single month, what you're doing,
what's falling beyond the remit and tell us how you are going
to remedy it urgently." I hope that is a way forward because
we do recognise there is a problem and we do take seriously the
role which this Committee and Committees in the other place play
in scrutinising everything we do.
Chairman: Thank you. I liked your image
of white water rafting blindfold, but I may add that your white
water rafting blindfold is in shark-infested waters! Turning to
the great white shark himself, Mr Dobbin.
Q2 Jim Dobbin: Thanks, Chairman!
Minister, despite the comments the Chairman made about much of
this happening before you became the Minister, you did write to
us on 10 November last year about the recovery plan, asking for
it to be released from scrutiny before the Council the following
week and the hard question is, did it not occur to you that this
was an unreasonable and unrealistic request?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. On
the cod recovery specifically, I know that this Committee could
not actually clear the dossier because you actually received our
impact assessment a week before the November Council and it was
after we had promised to send it as soon as possible in that EM
which we first sent on 25 April. Now, as I say, I do not want
to be the small boy giving excuses, there are no excuses, but
there are areas we can work on. But certainly the delay we had
with that was that we had to draw on a number of agencies to get
the necessary information, including CEFAS, the MFA and others,
and later on, of course, we had the delay, the adjournments in
the EU Norway aspect of the talks, which were critical to how
we took that on. So they gave us an element of uncertainty in
this. Now, following the adoption at the November Council, we
wrote to the Commons Committee on 22 November to report on what
was agreed, but I agree with you it could be tighter. It is not
acceptable and if we can learn anything from that example and
others then we need to put it in place.
Q3 Mr Cash: As you may or may not
know but as is the case, we have had a number of over-rides on
three documents. You wrote to us on 5 December. We appreciate
that none of these were the fault of the United Kingdom, but the
time allowed by Brussels for proper consideration by the national
parliaments is regarded as hopelessly inadequate. Then on 17 December
we wrote to you and suggested you could take these things up with
the Commission. What has happened and what is your reply?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Mr Cash, are
we talking here in response to the appeal you made to us to take
this forward, and also not to specific examples, but the generality
of how we have clearance, how we can actually bring it in in the
time available.
Mr Cash: Yes. We asked you if you would
take up all this with the Commission.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, we have.
We have not yet bottomed-out our reply with the Commission, but
what I can certainly say is that we are doing our best. Whilst
we can improve procedures ourselves, we are trying to do our best
to improve procedures from that end as well. Although I would
perhaps point out that one moment of progress this year was within
one part of the negotiations where we actually had early sight
of broad proposals from the Commission but we only actually had
the Commission's proposals in detail within, I think it was, 24
or 48 hours of walking into the Council Chamber. So sometimes
we are hidebound by things which are out of our control, but we
do try and articulate to the Commission that we need to actually
report back to our own Parliament as well and to the committees
within it.
Q4 Mr Cash: Do you get the sense
that they really think we are a slight sort of pain in the butt,
that we are really rather a nuisance?
Huw Irranca-Davies: No, I do not
think so, because what we articulate to them strongly is that
we consider the input of the Committees of this House as vitally
important to not only our negotiations stance recognising that
sometimes our negotiation is done literally in a realtime fashion,
as I am sure you will acknowledge but that the scrutiny we have
here is important to how we take it forward. So we regret any
instance where the Committee here or in the other place does not
have the opportunity to fully look at it, but I do accept what
you are saying in that sometimes it is beyond our gift to actually
come back in a timely fashion to the Committee. I am realistic
about that. Sometimes that does happen.
Q5 Chairman: Can I just press you
slightly on that, Minister? You said in your letter that you might
take up the concerns with the Commission. I get a sense of vagueness
in your own answer as to exactly how that was taken up. Was it
taken up in writing? Are you waiting for a written reply? Did
one of your officials speak to one of their officials? Exactly
what are we talking about here?
Huw Irranca-Davies: I believe,
Chairman, what we have is official engagement here to try and
work through how they can be more accommodating to us in all the
negotiations, but I am more than happy to actually write to you
in some detail on what actions have been taken and what we can
expect as well.
Chairman: That would be very useful.
Thank you.
Q6 Kelvin Hopkins: Another area of
concern has been the inadequate content of any fisheries Explanatory
Memoranda, and this was a particular problem with documents last
summer, 1136908 and 1137008, on the package of measures relating
to oil prices and the restructuring of the EU fleet. The provisional
Explanatory Memoranda in mid-July was inadequate, and indeed looking
at our notes it was 42 pages of complex argument summarised in
one and a half paragraphs. This was regarded as inadequate and
it took your Department a further three and a half months to provide
the information requested. Why was this and what are you doing
to prevent this happening again?
Huw Irranca-Davies: I think it
very much returns to my original comments. I think we have learnt
from that and other examples that it is not acceptable to go to
that length of time, and I take your points on the amount of detail
as well. Sometimes we do have correspondence back and forth, or
alternatively, in order to put it in front of the Committee in
a timely fashion—which was not the case in this instance,
I appreciate—we work on the information that we have, but
we do then correspond sometimes with the Committee as well to
flush out further details. But you are right in what you are saying
and hopefully—and we certainly intend to pursue this—the
idea of having monthly checks now on all the private officers
and directors who have the policy leads in these areas will first
of all make sure that they are being responded to timely and in
a comprehensive manner, but also if anything slips over that timetable
to explain why that is happening because I want to make sure that
wherever possible—and I know there will be exceptions, but
they should be exceptions—we are able to put in front of
this Committee something which is comprehensive, accurate and
timely so that you can make the right input.
Chairman: I suggest to you that that
was a rather vague answer, and I do not blame you for not being
able to answer precisely on these documents, but once again you
have said you are going to write to us on the last question and
it might be useful to actually write with some detail about these
two documents and that three and a half month delay so that we
have it on the record from you and so that you are finding out
the systemic problems which caused this and you might then correct
them.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes.
Q7 Kelvin Hopkins: Fisheries and
the Common Fisheries Policy is a particular interest of mine,
but it is a matter of great importance for Britain given that
we are perhaps the largest fishery nation in the European Union
with our large coastline and the vast surround of a sea with fish
in it, and if one country has to be on the ball when it comes
to fisheries policy it has to be Britain
Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree entirely.
Q8 Keith Hill: Minister, do you at
this stage have any kind of generic explanations for some of the
delays you have been experiencing?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, I do.
Against the broad context it might help to explain with some particular
examples. If, for example, we look at the TACs on quotas which
falls within the time I have been here so I can speak with some
knowledge of this in this case the very short time given to both
Committees was due to agreeing these measures at the December
Council, shortly after proposals were published by the Commission.
This was a very short timescale. In the past the Commission has
published proposals at least two weeks before the December Council.
One of the benefits with TACs on quotas this year was that there
was a long engagement with stakeholders out there. There was,
in fact, I would say better engagement than we have been able
to have over a long time, but the difficulty was that we did not
actually see the firm proposal until within a couple of days.
So this year the Commission in this example tabled the TACs on
quotas proposals on 12 November. Our EM was issued then to the
Scrutiny Committees on 1 December after going through the detail
of it and pulling in the information from various ones such as
CEFAS and MFA. Once we knew that the agreement then on the North
Sea stocks was going to be delayed because of the adjournment
of the EU Norway second round, what we did then in response to
that to try and put some information out there was to put forward
a partial impact assessment on the Commission's proposals to the
Committee on 3 December, knowing that we would not have the full
outcome of the EU Norway talks. So in that respect we tried to
do what we could against a backdrop of shifting sands with the
EU Norway talks, trying to put what information we could in front
of the Committee and then to come back to the Committee, and we
are very grateful for the Committee actually considering that
subsequently. But it is that sort of backdrop we are up against.
I can explain that one because I was fully involved in it. Not
all are like that. I do recognise that actually some of the ones
we are talking about are an instance of simply, why was it not
delivered sooner? We do always have to pull from two, three or
four sources of information on some quite complex territory and
I know the Committee will understand that, but that is not an
excuse for not trying to get it back in a much more timely fashion
by and large. But I think the TACs on quotas ones do actually
show why sometimes the very best plans will be knocked off course.
Q9 Keith Hill: So sometimes it is
external factors rather than internal factors which cause the
delays?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes.
Keith Hill: You will probably be aware
that a couple of weeks ago our Chairman had cause to write to
your colleague, Lord Hunt, about 14 EMs which were delayed beyond
the Cabinet deadline, some of them by a very considerable period.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes.
Q10 Keith Hill: Are we to understand
that the system you told us about at the beginning of this session,
namely the circulation of overdue cases every month, will hopefully
catch this kind of problem?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, I genuinely
hope so and I genuinely think so, and certainly if it is helpful
to give you something of an update in response to the letter to
Lord Hunt and, as I say, the seriousness with which we have taken
this—and we thank you for raising this with us—and
the work we have done with our directors and private offices.
There were 14 cases listed within the letter and this one subsequently
on the issue of whaling, so 15 in total. In the letter I have
for the Committee I would have been reporting as of this morning
that five had been submitted to the Committee, five were under
consideration by ministers and four are with policy officials,
but actually as of this afternoon eight have now been submitted
to the Committee. Three then are left under consideration with
ministers, which we hope to deal with very promptly, and four
remain with policy officials for urgent action. So regardless
of what we do on moving towards this monthly analysis, what we
are trying to do is also deal with that backlog you have identified.
Q11 Mr Clappison: Minister, you have
already mentioned some of the improvements and some of the monitoring
you are going to try to undertake to make sure that scrutiny is
observed, but can you tell us about the staffing of the Scrutiny
Coordination Unit in your Department? Do you feel it is fully
up to strength following recent moves, and can you tell us anything
else as to what you are doing to improve the performance of the
Unit?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, I think
the Scrutiny Coordination Unit has been fully engaged with the
Secretary of State and our thoughts on how we improve the system
and we are confident that it is not an issue of strength either
in numbers or expertise. The people are there, the willingness
is there and the direction is there to actually do this alongside
the plans we have just talked about. Their role, I think, is going
to be pivotal in making sure that this beds in and that it does
pay dividends so that we have a better story to tell next time
we appear in front of you.
Mr Clappison: I think the point Mr Hopkins
made is well made. This is something which is very important to
many constituents and a lot of the decisions are coming through
Europe.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes.
Chairman: Minister, before we move on
to the second question—I hope you have been told we have
a supplementary range of questions on whaling to put to you—you
know how vital it is to have the debate on the Floor of the House
on Total Allowable Catches. It has been echoed by a number of
Members and this is an industry with a vital interest for many,
many people and there always seem to be some difficulties in our
Committee having its scrutiny role fitted into that. I think we
must urge upon you that that is a key item for many of the people
we represent and for a number of people on this Committee, so
if you and your Department could do your best to ensure we do
have adequate time for scrutiny before it goes for debate it would
be most helpful.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, Chairman,
I take that point. I think we have had at least two substantial
opportunities, one on the Floor of the Commons and one in a previous
place, I think only a fortnight ago. I take the point, which is
well made, that it is vitally important for this Committee to
actually look at the detail of what we are taking forward in what
is a hurly-burly of negotiations in the autumn, but also on the
wider remit of my Department.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Can we
move on to the question of the International Whaling Commission.
This has exercised many, many people within the UK, particularly
where there are what are called the "scientific" killing
of whales, which most people do not believe are actually the scientific
killing of whales, particularly by Japan, so it is an issue which
has exercised the Committee on a number of occasions.
Q12 Jim Dobbin: Before the Committee
considered this issue we had reservations, quite honestly, and
we only agreed it after about three scrutiny reserves, so we are
just looking for a further statement from yourself really. We
are seeing that there again appears to be a firm commitment to
maintain the present moratorium. Why then do you say in your Explanatory
Memorandum that the UK "might not be so fortunate in future"
in pursuing an effective anti-whaling policy as we were in 2008?
It is about the Government's commitment in actual fact.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes. I would
not want at all to leave the impression with this Committee or
anybody else that this Government is wavering in its long-held
stance in terms of whaling; it is not, far from it. We have been,
and continue to be, right at the forefront of the more powerful
and perhaps if not strident certainly outspoken voices both in
terms of our approach to "scientific whaling" but generally
in terms of whaling as well, so please do not assume anything
different from that word in the memorandum. I think what it reflects
is that we indeed have allies in that position as well, but there
are different voices out there who would not agree with the strong
stance we are taking and for years we have had that stance and
argued the case, and we continue to do so. Is not always without
opposition, as you know, but our position is unwavering.
Jim Dobbin: It is unwavering. Thank you.
Q13 Keith Hill: Minister, we are
satisfied with the substance of this year's proposal, as you indicate.
Would it not be more advantageous to the anti-whaling countries
to have a longer mandate in fact?
Huw Irranca-Davies: We have considered
this and our position on it and certainly there is bearing in
mind what I was saying about the position of other countries a
strong majority for the current scope of the proposal. That is
why the UK is supporting the re-drafted position of the last Environment
Working Group, which I think was on 9 February. This is essentially
a re-negotiation of an existing position so there is little leverage
we have. There is always an issue with these as to how much leverage
we have to re-negotiate either for longer or shorter, but there
is actually a strong majority around the position. The latest
draft limits the applicability of any new decision to three years,
as you know. We can live with this decision, recognising that
there is strong support around it. The UK would prefer to limit
this decision to one year—this is pretty much standard practice
with other mandates, that is the standard approach there—but
there is little support for that position and because we have
at least limited its scope to three years, after which it will
have to be reviewed, we are content with that. The other thing
we did do is we argued against the application of the mandate
to the inter-sessional meetings, at which no decisions having
legal effect can be taken, but we did not have much support for
that. So it is really a question on the three years. This is the
strongly supported position and, recognising that it is not going
to go anywhere else, we are content with it. We would prefer it
to be shorter.
Q14 Keith Hill: I think we should
yield gracefully on this then, don't you?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed.
Q15 Chairman: Looking at this whole
question of where we have come to on past procedures, it would
appear that the Commission had no right to be at the IWC and that
there was whether they should be there. I think what you said
was that you did not dispute that the Commission had some competence
in this area. There is a fundamental question here and that is,
what competence does the EU have in this area and on what grounds?
I think there is a fundamental question to be answered. They have
tried to marshal the forces of countries in the EU, but they seem
to be claiming a competence and you do say yourself in your own
notes that the worry would be that if this idea that the Commission
should go to the IWC and have this mandate for three years it
might set a precedent for the future in other areas?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes.
Q16 Chairman: That is really worrying
because it does seem that there is very, very thin ground for
the EU claiming any competence in this area at all. Where do they
get their competence and on what grounds?
Huw Irranca-Davies: The competence
is from the agreement with Member Nations and we do not demur
from that. We think there is a strong position to be had with
a European position on this, if we can actually get to a position
where we have something which is agreeable to us as well.
Q17 Chairman: You should just step
back before you extend yourself in the logic of doing good deals.
You were saying at the beginning that because nations give the
Commission the right to be there, collectively they get that competence.
So you give away a competence to them on a permanent basis by
agreeing they should be there, but they do not have a competence
in their own right by definition by the Treaties, which is that
they should add value or do something at the Commission level
that is not done adequately at the nation level. Can you change
the reality in that way just by making an agreement to give them
competence?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, I believe
the way we have evolved to this position is a recognition by Member
Nations that we would have more authority in actually having a
European approach to this as long as it was right. But I understand
what you are saying and perhaps in the letter I am writing to
you I can clarify not only how we have got to that position but
also it is worth mentioning, Chairman, that this does not detract
from our independent strong line as well, which we will continue
to articulate not only publicly but in discussions with other
Member Nations, and in discussions with countries which undertake
"scientific whaling". So it does not in any way pull
us back from a more outspoken position, but we do recognise—without
trying to avoid your question, and I will write to you with the
detail of how we have got to it—that there is strength in
numbers, I think, as a European entity to actually argue the case.
We are content broadly with what are the proposals in here.
Chairman: I am not disagreeing with anything
and I would say I fully support, as other Members have said, the
UK position and it is grand to see that others are coming together,
but there is the warning signal you flag up yourself that once
you do that in one area, it then can become a precedent for further
areas and you end up giving away competences just because it is
a useful negotiating position without ever coming to Parliament
and saying, "We are changing the role." What you are
doing is practically a passerelle . You are giving away your own
position to a collective position and that can be a very dangerous
precedent, and I think that was a point of principle which had
to be raised. I think, yes, it would be useful to have it explained
in some detail in a written form.
Huw Irranca-Davies: We will, Chairman.
I was biting at the opportunity to come back because you are right
and that is why, actually, we opposed the idea because there is
an argument to say, "If there is strength in the numbers
and you have got an agreed position, go for a longer period."
We were quite adamantly opposed to that. We would have preferred
a shorter period. We accepted the compromise of three years, but
we are worried about setting a precedent where you do delegate
upwards to a larger Member nations' body this responsibility.
We have a slightly different and a slightly stronger position
by and large than some other Member nations. We want to continue
articulating that and that is why it is important that at the
end of these three years there is a review.
Chairman: Thank you. I am sure you not
only have the support of Members of this Committee but of the
vast majority of the British public in taking up that strong line.
Can I thank you for your attendance and for clearing up these
many issues which have been lying on the table for some time,
and we look forward to your written response to the outstanding
questions. Thank you, and good luck.
|
