| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Haskel : My Lords, there are two reasons why I am taking up your Lordships' time this afternoon. First, because I think that the relationship between subsidiarity and the single market is very important; and we can do something about it. Secondly, I am a Europhile and we Europhiles do not make enough of subsidiarity.
Your Lordships' committee published its report on 14 April, and there is quite a lot of discussion about what subsidiarity is, what it is not and whether it has, or has not been effective. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, explained it further this afternoon. But, frankly, I found it all rather inward looking and it all tends to deal with process. It sounds as though we are dealing with a bureaucratic steamroller. It certainly does not sound as though we like subsidiarity, which I think we do.
Noble Lords may say that that is not the job of our committees—perhaps. But the French and Dutch referendums which rejected the constitutional treaty warn us that we cannot ignore public opinion in our work. If we do, the public will remove the foundation upon which our work is based. I think that the June European Council recognised that with its call for a period of reflection. I suggest that our attitude towards subsidiarity is an important part of this reflection.
We should start this reflection by being more concerned about voters. Voters care as much about tone and impression as they do about policy and process. For instance, the EU treaty defines subsidiarity as the Union acting only if objectives cannot be achieved by the member states alone. But UNICE, the voice of business in Europe, while accepting this, goes on to say in its definition,
"EU action should not disrupt the delicate balance found at national level, which takes into account national traditions and cultures".
It goes on to call for a principle-based approach rather than a rules-based approach, which would allow a degree of flexibility for organisations to develop whichever model suits them best.
It is wise to look outwards in that way, but that means that there is more risk—risk of upsetting the delicate balance between subsidiarity, state aid and regulation. In theory, in a single market there should be no need for subsidiarity, but if a clear, open market does not exist, rules are needed. Different member nations apply rules differently depending on the structure of the industry in their country. That maintains the all-important relationship between national governments and their citizens to which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, referred.
However, as I said, there are risks. Recently, Sub-Committee B, of which I am a member, considered gas supplies in the European Union. We again called for liberalisation of the markets in each member state, but each member state also has its own national tradition and culture in gas supply. Here in Britain, we have a liberalised market where cheap gas prices have been achieved due to some companies buying on the margin
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1461
when supplies were plentiful and cheap. Other countries have less liberalised markets—some with a single supplier, who bought long-term at higher prices. Now that marginal prices are high, we are suffering from higher prices and, possibly, a shortage. Whether that is a result of subsidiarity, poor regulation, poor enforcement of EU rules or plain gas price speculation gone wrong, I do not know. The fact is that the only way to tidy that up may be closer integration. But the public do not seem to be in favour of that.
Subsidiarity can work, too, by opening up the Union, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said. Recently, our committee considered the third railway package. Among other things, that package considered the certification of train drivers for cross-border traffic. But here in Britain, 95 per cent of our drivers do not cross borders into other member states, so the committee raised that as a matter of subsidiarity. We got a temporary derogation but, most importantly, the Select Committee drew the attention of other national parliaments to the matter and they, too, are dealing with it in their own way. That is the constructive communication referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. At stake are issues affecting the functioning of the single market and the interests of business here and in other member states.
There are two alternatives. There will be either partial integration, in which groups of EU nation states get closer together in different groupings, or a freer meaning of subsidiarity—a subsidiarity that strengthens the role of national parliaments and encourages a kind of localism that presents Europe as a more caring institution that enables member states to develop according to their national traditions and cultures. I believe in the latter. I believe in subsidiarity. That is why I agree with the paper that we should pay more attention to yellow cards and make subsidiarity an essential part of our scrutiny. I believe that we can do that.
As my small example showed, we already have a well developed scrutiny system that subsidiarity monitoring can plug into. I think that the House would expect our EU committees and sub-committees to monitor subsidiarity, rather than to set up a separate mechanism. If necessary, we can involve the whole House on a particular issue through debates or Questions. The House will welcome some can-do spirit from the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, regarding subsidiarity monitoring and will welcome the tests about which he has just told us.
I have one last point. I read the House of Lords briefing on scrutinising European legislation and the chairman's handbook for Members. The only mention that I could find of subsidiarity was a reference to it in the context of explanatory memoranda prepared by government departments. I suggest that after the debate, that omission is rectified.
5.30 pm
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, not only for introducing these two reports but, as a member of the Select Committee, also
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1462
for his guidance from the chair of the committee in preparing them. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, has given the House a clear explanation of the committee's report and its proposals. I would not seek to better that explanation, or to repeat it.
The role of national parliaments was to have been enhanced under the provisions of the constitutional treaty. Happily, there now seems to be an acceptance of the desirability of subsidiarity and the greater involvement of national parliaments in European affairs. While I regret the loss of the formal and legal process set out in the constitutional treaty, there is no reason that national parliaments should not try to exercise the same role as envisaged in the treaty, even if they must rely on influence rather than a strict treaty provision.
I hope that national parliaments, across the Union, will participate in the COSAC scheme to carry out the check on subsidiarity and proportionality. I certainly hope that opponents of the treaty will not condemn the exercise as an attempt to introduce it through the back door—and, moreover, that treaty supporters will not see it as an attempt to weaken it by cherry-picking a particular provision.
The treaty only gave national parliaments the early warning mechanism, or the "yellow card", in respect of alleged breaches of subsidiarity—although the protocol itself referred to the application of subsidiarity and proportionality. I understand that the COSAC scheme refers to both. That is welcome as I believe that proportionality might, in many instances, prove to be a greater problem in connection with proposals than subsidiarity. Indeed, I have been advised that in a recent analysis of Commission proposals, only 11 out of 600 may have given rise to subsidiarity problems.
We may be in a period of reflection following the French and Dutch rejection of the constitutional treaty but, presumably, that does not mean that we spend our time gazing into the mirror. I suggest that these are not the only elements within the treaty which will, in the fullness of time, need to be addressed. I accept that the treaty itself has little chance of becoming law in the foreseeable future, but we cannot do nothing for the foreseeable future. Changes to the operation of the European Union will have to be made. As national parliamentarians, the area that we are discussing this evening directly affects us and is one on which we can proceed. Yet we cannot reject all such proposals merely because they first saw the light in a treaty that was subsequently not implemented. We must be prepared to use existing treaties to accomplish aims, where a particular proposal is in the interests of the efficient working of the Union and the improvement of the democratic process.
One proposal lost within the treaty was related to the protocol on subsidiarity. It aimed to ensure that decisions were taken at the appropriate level, closest to the people. The protocol referred particularly to the Committee of the Regions. Your Lordships will know that that is the European organisation for local and regional authorities; I had the pleasure of being a
15 Dec 2005 : Column 1463
member of it for some time. It is consulted on a number of proposals. The draft treaty proposed that the Committee of the Regions would have the right to bring actions in the European Court of Justice against European legislative acts where it considered that they infringed subsidiarity and involved matters where it had to be consulted. From my experience of work on the Committee of the Regions, I do not believe that local and regional authorities are anything other than jealous guardians of subsidiarity and their independence. That is another factor which may cause us to regret that we have not been able to go forward.
Perhaps we should be encouraged by the outcome of the conference held on 17 November in The Hague. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, referred to the conclusions. I shall expand on those briefly. The papers state that:
"Member State Parliaments are encouraged . . . to develop their scrutiny role to ensure democratic debate at the EU's multi-annual and annual programmes, consultation documents, road maps . . . to provide the European institutions with an early indication of their perspectives on where Member States should take action; and . . . to participate in the efforts of COSAC".
"The Commission, with the Member States Council and European Parliament, is encouraged . . . to ensure that Member State Parliaments are consulted at an early stage and their views taken into account before bringing forward new legislative proposals or proposals to reduce EU involvement in some areas".
All these are, I believe, a formula for partnership and a recognition by governments and by the European institutions of the legitimate role of national parliaments. It is something in which we as national parliaments can play a positive rather than a carping role in European matters, and ensure that legislation coming from Europe is properly scrutinised.
5.36 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |