Examination of Witnesses (Questions 460-479)
Mr Jim Murphy and Mr Ananda Guha
4 JUNE 2008
Q460 Lord Burnett: Some Member States
must have more influence than others. It would be very interesting
to hear from you as a minister. The largest contributor is, of
course, the Federal Republic of Germany and, as the largest country
in the EU, it is an original member. I would like to hear from
you what sort of influence they have within the machinery because
it seems that the German Chancellor decided to bring back to life
the defeated and defunct Constitution which we are debating in
the House today. I would just like to hear about that, the relative
strengths.
Mr Murphy: Obviously, in a technical sense size
matters. In a technical sense, of course it does, not just because
of the voting weights. As an aside, our voting weight, as a consequence
of what your Lordships are discussing, will increase. For example,
when a Member State assumes the presidency—and Slovenia
is doing an excellent job currently with this Presidency—for
me it is symbolic of the difficulty that while we are delighted
that Slovenia has the presidency and we think they are doing a
very good job, there is the capacity issue. We second not a substantial
number of civil servants but some to the Slovenian civil service
to help guarantee an effective presidency. It is a small thing,
but nevertheless I think it is symbolic of the challenge which
Slovenia faces that when I go to meet the Ambassadors of all the
Member States of the European Union during the Slovenian Presidency
I have lunch at the Spanish Ambassador's house as part of the
Slovenian Presidency. Again, it is a small thing, but it is about
the capacity of a smaller Member State to drive the agenda. On
occasion, I think in future with some of the smaller Member States—and
I am far from intending to be critical, this is just an assessment
of fact—even when we bring to an end the rotating presidency
we will see their role as maintaining the momentum on the inherited
work rather than the point we were talking about earlier, initiation,
because in a relatively small country with a relatively small
civil service and government in terms of capacity, all of these
things, budgets, population, voting weights and personalities,
the politics of personalities, the politics of left and right,
the geography, the history, all of this and more impacts on the
relative influence of a Member State. What it boils down to is,
are we content with the influence that we have? The answer is,
yes. Are we content with the level of influence which the United
Kingdom has? Yes, but we are always looking to find additional
ways. You asked me about Germany and I answered about the UK.
I am not going to get myself in trouble!
Q461 Lord Bowness: Minister, I am
still trying to get to grips with the real mechanics of this rather
than the formality of it. In opening you said that you soon came
to the conclusion that the idea which is engendered by the "monopoly
of the right of initiative" is not actually correct and that
there is a lot of interaction, and you referred to presidency
conclusions, but presumably presidency conclusions do not drop
out of the sky either. So if HMG has got a bright idea, clearly
they are going to want to see whether that has got support from
other Member States. Is that done on a series of bilateral meetings
or discussions in the first place? Is it raised in Coreper? What
goes on before it gets to the stage where it appears in that appendix
to the presidency conclusions and then everybody turns around
and says, "Goodness me, the Commission has produced this"?
This is manifestly not the case.
Mr Murphy: It is both bilateral and Coreper,
and so much else. For example, I was in Prague two or three weeks
ago, hosted by the Deputy Prime Minister of the Czech Republic,
again on better regulation, where ourselves, the Italians, the
Dutch, the Swedes, signed a declaration on better regulation.
Now, we would expect that to have an impact upon the Commission.
Ourselves and the French, the state visit of President Sarkozy,
and that afternoon it did not get a lot of attention. Other things
captured the media's attention about that state visit, but we
had ten bilaterals between different ministers of both governments.
So I met with my opposite number, the Europe Minister, the Foreign
Secretary met with his opposite number, the Secretary of State
for Defence, the Secretary of State for Children, and others,
and each agreed areas of joint work. Some of that is bilateral
but some of it is through the European institutions. The short
answer is that there is no science to it. It is a relatively complicated
process which with experience you can navigate your way around
and through to great effect, which again comes back to this issue
of size. But some Member States which are smaller do manage to
punch above their weight. I could point to the Dutch, who are
very effective in the work they do, and also the Swedes.
Q462 Lord Bowness: Minister, I would
not want to put words in your mouth, but would it be fair to say
that it is extremely unlikely that a Commission's proposal ever
comes as a surprise to the Government, either of this country
or any other Member State?
Mr Murphy: In my time that would be true, yes.
If your Lordships wish, I could reflect further back, if you would
find that helpful.
Q463 Chairman: Could I ask about
the role of national parliaments in the development of proposals?
Could this Parliament in particular have more input into the general
direction in which European proposals are moving, into annual
or multi-annual work programmes and that sort of thing? We do,
of course, see them, but is there scope for significant influence
there which could be developed?
Mr Murphy: I think the answer is, most certainly,
yes. There are proposals post-ratification for that type of thing
to happen with the introduction of the yellow card and the orange
cards for national parliaments.
Q464 Chairman: That is more related
to individual proposals, is it not?
Mr Murphy: On subsidiarity, yes. First of all,
national parliaments, in the reports which are undertaken and
published, do have an effect. When I was in Slovenia in preparation
for their Presidency, when I met with the government ministers—and
I have told the Chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee
this already, so it is not an insult to him or his Committee,
or to the House of Commons—the government there and the
parliamentarians spoke about the House of Lords' scrutiny of European
issues just because of the quality of it. They were not intending
to be critical of the House of Commons' process, but they have
certainly spoken about the House of Lords, your Lordships' reports.
Q465 Chairman: Do they have any impact
in Brussels?
Mr Murphy: They do. I think the example your
Lordships have already reflected on, the Report on the wholesale
prices of roaming charges on mobile phones, has certainly had
an impact. It is now part of the established orthodoxy that your
Lordships' reflections on that had an impact on the Commission,
and a really effective impact.
Q466 Lord Wright of Richmond: Minister,
earlier you said that the House of Lords had a tendency to ask
for examples. Can I ask for an example? Do you actually know of
any case where a House of Lords report by the Select Committee
has led to legislation? I asked this question, actually, at UKREP
and I got a general reply, but I do not think they were aware
of any specific cases.
Mr Murphy: The only specific is the one I shared
with you, but that was not in legislation, that was about amending
a proposal on mobile phone roaming charges. That is the one which
I think is the most talked of, clearly because it has undoubtedly
had an impact, but again if your Lordships wish me to reflect
on it further I will happily do so.
Q467 Lord Wright of Richmond: It
is perhaps for us to answer my question!
Mr Murphy: But that is the one which generally
is regarded as having had—I am not sure about an immediate,
but a substantial impact.
Baroness O'Cathain: That is partly due to the
fact that it affects practically every consumer. There are a lot
of things which I think we probably have had an impact upon which
are more general, particularly in the agricultural area and things
like that, going back over the years. I am sure we would be able
to find out, actually, just to answer Lord Wright's question.
Q468 Chairman: The reports you mentioned
are reports on individual proposals already made, and I think
we would be interested to know whether there is more scope for
actually influencing what proposals come forward. That would have
to be at the level, I suppose, of the annual or multi-annual work
programme?
Mr Murphy: The multi-annual. If your Lordships
wish, I will happily reflect on whether there are better ways
in which we can share with your Lordships' Committee how we can
have an input.
Q469 Chairman: Yes. It would probably
need evidence and discussion. At the moment we simply review them,
but perhaps not in that way.
Mr Murphy: On the basis that Europe ministers
usually last in their jobs about a year, and I have been in the
job about a year, I have no hesitation in agreeing that in future
Europe Ministers should give evidence to your Lordships' Committee
on the multi-annual review!
Q470 Baroness O'Cathain: Joking apart,
I think it would be an extremely useful thing to do, and it would
encourage us, too, because sometimes we think we have spent hours
going through this stuff, and where does it all end up?
Mr Murphy: Yes. Let us see if we can work on
a way in which both officials and ministers can give evidence
to your Lordships' Committee on it.
Baroness O'Cathain: That is a very good idea.
Q471 Lord Rosser: Would it be correct
to say that if any proposal from a committee of this House about
future legislation was to have any real impact it would have to
have the support of the UK Government of the day, or are you suggesting
that we could be so influential that even if the UK Government
of the day was less than enamoured with what we had to say the
Commission might decide nevertheless to take it on board?
Mr Murphy: With the support of Her Majesty's
Government, of course your Lordships' observations would be strengthened,
but actually my reading of the Lisbon Treaty would be that actually
in future it would not require the support of Her Majesty's Government
to block a Commission proposal on the grounds of subsidiarity.
In future, a third of the votes of national parliaments can ask
the Commission to reflect and reconsider. Half would initiate
the orange card, and then on those grounds of subsidiarity the
Commission would have to take the proposal to the European Parliament
and to the European Council, and if either the European Parliament
or the European Council objected, then the proposal would fall.
So it is certainly my reading—more than my reading, it is
my understanding that in that circumstance where more than half
of the votes assigned to national parliaments objected to the
proposal and either the European Council or the European Parliament
supported the objection, then the proposal would fall. So the
short answer is, yes, it could be done in future without the support
of Her Majesty's Government.
Q472 Lord Rosser: Including initiating
legislation as opposed to responding to it, because that is the
distinction which is being drawn?
Mr Murphy: No, this would be in responding and
objecting rather than initiation.
Q473 Lord Rosser: But what about
initiation?
Mr Murphy: On initiation, I think it would be
fair to reflect that it would require support. It would be difficult
for it to succeed, I think, without the support of Her Majesty's
Government. It would not be impossible, because the report could
impact upon the dynamics in Brussels in such a way that other
Member States would support it and the UK could not gather a qualified
majority, a blocking minority, but that is unlikely.
Q474 Baroness Kingsmill: Do you think
the influence of lobbyists in the Commission is sufficiently transparent?
Mr Murphy: Not yet, no.
Q475 Baroness Kingsmill: How do you
think it could be made more transparent? If you would elaborate
just a little.
Mr Murphy: It is my understanding that the European
Parliament in particular is the second most lobbied organisation
in the world after the Hill in the US. In that context, for all
sorts of reasons, there needs to be further improvements in the
organisation and regulation of lobbyists. What is being proposed
I think in principle is sensible, but we will have to look at
the detail. With that caveat, I think what is being proposed is
sensible, which is a voluntary registration process but a binding
code of conduct. That sounds a little bit contradictory, but the
reason why I think it is about right is because in a very short
time indeed the first question which would be asked of any organisation
of lobbyists is, "Are you a Member of the Association? Are
you bound by the code of conduct?" The proposal is that once
you are on the register you would be compulsorily bound by the
code of conduct.
Q476 Baroness Kingsmill: Yes. In
the US, of course, it is much easier to recognise a lobbyist when
you see one, so to speak.
Mr Murphy: Yes, almost every second person.
Q477 Baroness Kingsmill: Indeed,
and they actually are registered lobbyists, so you are able to
find out what interests they are actually representing. So politicians
and the like do not fall into traps or anything else like that.
It is not quite so clear, is it, in Europe?
Mr Murphy: No, it is not. I think that is a
very fair observation, which is why there are these proposals.
It probably is not the end of the process, but it certainly is
an important improvement. Again, we will happily share with your
Lordships, as this conversation of the lobbyists evolves, our
thinking on it, but I think it would be an improvement. A voluntary
register but a compulsory code of conduct, I think, would -
Q478 Chairman: What would you put
on the voluntary register?
Mr Murphy: This would be, "I am a registered
lobbyist."
Q479 Baroness Kingsmill: "And
these are the interests that I represent"?
Mr Murphy: Yes. As I understand it, the proposal
is—but we still have to discuss the detail of it—"My
name is Mr Murphy and I am from this lobbying organisation,"
and because I am on the register you know that I abide by the
code of conduct and therefore, if you like, it is like a kite
mark of some sort and you know that you may be judged against
the code of conduct. For it to mean anything there would have
to be the capacity to throw you off the register, to suspend you
or expel you from this accepted list of lobbyists. These are the
types of things we will have to work through.
| 
