Examination of Witnesses (question Numbers
40-50)
CHRIS BRYANT
MP, MS JANE
RUMBLE AND
MR PAUL
WILLIAMS
24 FEBRUARY 2010
Q40 Mr Hands: Could I ask the Minister
what further thought you have given to the principle of subsidiarity,
which we have skirted around and Mr Williams has just talked a
little bit about? Can you tell us what you think the principle
of subsidiarity is?
Chris Bryant: I am going to get
my theology wrong here but I think the principle of subsidiarity
originally stems from Quadragesimo Anno, the Papal encyclical
which stated that no state should abrogate unto itself a power
which should more appropriately be arbitrated at a lower level.
I think that, broadly speaking, that is what all of us agreed
to. That is why I supported devolution. I believe that the people
who are most affected and can most effectively make the decision
are the people who should make that decision. If it is about local
footpaths, it should be by the local council; if it is about broadcasting,
it should by the Member State; if it is about allocation of spectrum,
it needs to be at a wider, international level. That is my understanding
of subsidiarity.
Q41 Mr Hands: But if something is
an EU competence, then clearly it has to be assessed according
to its impact on all of the Member States, not just in this case
the three Member States that are most affected. Can you outline
what you think the differences would be if there were an EU Antarctic
strategy and what you think the differences would be, therefore,
on a subsidiarity basis between the two?
Chris Bryant: That is a very hypothetical
question.
Q42 Mr Hands: But all the competences
you described earlier could just as much apply to the Antarctic
in terms of climate change, energy, fisheries and so on.
Chris Bryant: No, very different,
because the Antarctic is a piece of land and is subject to a single
treaty, which has suspended everybody's claims on it; whereas
the Arctic is constituted completely differently. It is not a
piece of land; it is an ocean.
Q43 Mr Hands: Let us say the Antarctic
and its surrounding seas. We are not interested in a geographical
debate here; we are interested in a debate about the principles
of subsidiarity and competence. What do you think would be the
key differences between the two in terms of subsidiarity?
Chris Bryant: As I say, the subsidiarity
question in relation to the Antarctic is decided, because there
is an international treaty which everybody signed up to and which
makes sure that all of these issues are addressed, and it would
simply be inconceivable to move in that direction. In relation
to the Arctic there is a whole series of different treaties that
apply to it, not least the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea, which in Article 76 refers to the continental shelf
extending for 200 nautical miles and allows for a process whereby
states can argue about their further extension beyond the outer
limits of it. The difficulty in the Arctic is that virtually all
of the Arctic states make claims against that. It is a very different
set of propositions, I am afraid. There is no land mass in the
Arctic.
Q44 Mr Hands: I realise that. As
it happens, I know quite a bit about the Arctic, but what I was
trying to get to was a general discussion of subsidiarity against
Commission competence. Perhaps the Antarctic was a more flippant
comparator than it should have been but, in terms of something
similar, can you talk a little bit more about where you see subsidiarity
kicking in with the Arctic strategy?
Chris Bryant: Thus far, it has
not been a problem. For the most part, I adopt a pretty pragmatic
approach to these issues; for instance, let me take a completely
different issue but in relation to subsidiarity—
Q45 Chairman: We have wandered into
your theological background, now we are going to wander into extrapolation
and other examples. What the question comes down to is this. If
the Commission is given competence to act, whether it is individual
competence, as you said, energy and fisheries—basically,
would you say that what you are saying is that those actions that
must be taken by the Commission must be to the benefit of the
whole of the EU rather than the three EU Arctic states? There
are only three Arctic states and they have some close neighbours,
but you are basically saying that overarching competence makes
the Commission have to put the interests of all of the EU before
the interests of those Arctic states. Where is subsidiarity in
that case?
Chris Bryant: The Commission should
always put the whole of the Union at the heart of what it is trying
to do but, inevitably, when it is developing a strategy in any
particular area it is bound to have some Member States more directly
affected than others.
Q46 Chairman: Where does subsidiarity
come in there? It is just bulldozed out of the way?
Chris Bryant: Not bulldozed out
of the way but, if it is an area where the Union has sole competence,
that is part of the treaty, that is part of the rules of the club
that everybody has signed up to in joining, and it is one of the
issues that anybody has to decide about when any competence is
granted exclusively to the Union.
Mr Williams: I would just make
two points. First of all, Council Conclusions are agreed unanimously,
so the states most affected in the EU must have signed up to these
and agreed these Conclusions. Secondly, anything that derives
from these Conclusions, such as Commission legislation or Commission
proposals, the Commission would need to take account of sovereignty
in those and show how it had done that in whatever Communication
came out. Subsidiarity would therefore kick in following these
Conclusions when there were individual proposals following on
from that.
Q47 Jim Dobbin: Just to talk a little
more about some of those neighbouring states that can be affected
by all of this, if we look at the Council Conclusions they recognised
the Arctic Council as the primary competent body and expressed
continued support for the Commission to become a permanent observer
in that body. It also said that the EU should actively seek consensus
approaches to relevant Arctic issues through co-operation with
Arctic states and territories outside the EU, for example Canada,
Greenland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation and the United
States, as well as other relevant actors with Arctic interests.
Can you tell me what evidence is there that these other interested
parties, for example Canada or Russia, see and accept the need
for enhanced Commission and/or EU involvement? What messages are
they sending to us?
Chris Bryant: I have not had any
discussions, I am afraid, with Canada or any of the others. I
had a very brief passing reference to it in Russia last week.
It is certainly true that the Arctic Council now, with its eight
members, six observers and five applicant observers, is wondering
a little bit about where it is going in the future; because if
it ends up with far more observers than it has members then it
will start to feel like a rather strange body. Some Member States
have a very clear, direct, bilateral interest in the Arctic; but,
for Britain, I think it is in our interests if the whole of Europe
takes a concerted interest in the Arctic, so that climate change
issues are addressed; so that scientific investigation can be
conducted; so that fisheries issues are addressed and so that
energy issues are addressed as well. I welcome the EU's approach.
I have already referred to the one issue where Canada is not very
happy with the European Union, which is over seal-culling.
Q48 Chairman: And that is the reason
why Canada opposed the EU's permanent observer status in 2009?
Chris Bryant: Is that a question
or a statement?
Q49 Chairman: It was a question.
Is that the reason, do you think, why they opposed it? Canada
did formally oppose the EU's permanent observer status.
Chris Bryant: I think it was twofold.
I think it was partly that and it was also, as I was just saying,
the fact that it is growing a bit like Topsy; then, when Argentina
suggested that it should join—it is a bit difficult to see
precisely what Argentina's interests would be in the North Pole.
Q50 Jim Dobbin: We just thought the
question was needed, to highlight that in fact those other areas
should not be forgotten.
Chris Bryant: Yes, absolutely.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. I think
we have explored both the concern of this Committee at the process
and maybe the areas where the same feeling of irritation and peevishness
is not needed in the future, because the Foreign Office and other
departments, as you say, may give us clear indications when things
move from Communications to Conclusions and we are therefore given
our proper role on behalf of Parliament and the people we represent.
I thank you for your time and I thank your colleagues for coming
along and for their contributions.
| 
