Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260
- 279)
WEDNESDAY 19 DECEMBER 2007
Mr Jim Murphy, Ms Shan Morgan, Mr Paul Berman and
Mr Martin Shearman
Q260 Lord Jopling:
Minister, under the new rules that we are faced with, if a country
wishes to join with others in getting a blocking minority in order
to block something, under the new rules on qualified majority
voting, is that not going to be a good deal more difficult and
is the Government unhappy about the effect of these changed rules
on the ability of the UK to block things it does not like?
Mr Murphy: No, that is not the case at all.
We are really pretty content with the new system of moving away
from qualified majority voting to double majority voting. I have
been asked about this before in various gatherings which has led
to me having to wade through all the analysis and it is another
one of those points where, not your good self, my Lord, of course,
but others, they substitute fact for assertion and I have had
debates in the Commons about this where it has been suggested
that this would be much more difficult and it weakens the UK position.
The fact is that, in terms of the UK's share of a blocking minority,
it has gone up from the current situation of 32%, so in any blocking
minority it wished to be involved in, whereas the UK is currently
32% of that, that would go up to 35% under the new system. It
may be helpful for your Lordships if I just reflect on what these
changes are about. With the system currently of qualified majority
voting, in order for a proposal to gain assent, it requires the
agreement of a majority of the Member States, as you know, plus,
I think it is, 255 of the 345 votes for a proposal to be agreed
to. Under the new system, instead of a majority of Member States,
it is 55% of Member States and, instead of 255 of 345, we are
moving to a system based on populations where the UK will be one
of the main beneficiaries because we are moving towards a system
of votes based on population, so I think at the moment we have
29 of the 345 and we are going to a situation where our population
of 60.6 million means that, instead of having an 8% share of the
vote in the Council, we go to a 12% share. The new system of double
majority voting is based on 55% of Member States, instead of a
simple majority, and, instead of the figure of 255, it is based
on the agreement of the Member States representing 65% of the
EU population, so you would have to have both, 55% of the States
plus 65% of the population of the EU, being within that 55% of
Member States. Therefore, in fact it enhances our share of the
vote and it increases our proportion of a blocking minority, so
based on all the science, all the facts, all the figures and all
the analysis, we are really pretty content with the deal that
we have here.
Q261 Lord Jopling:
Can I turn to another side of this and ask you what you think
will be the position in the future of a country which very, very
strongly objects to what is proposed and what, in the old days,
used to be described as a "vital national interest",
and that brings me to what used to be called the "Luxembourg
compromise". I think that you perhaps agree that there was
a lot of misunderstanding about what was meant by the Luxembourg
compromise and a lot of people, particularly in this building,
thought that a country just had to say, "Veto" and that
was that. Of course, it was not like that at all. If you had a
vital national interest and you declared it, in order to apply
that "veto", one had to get a blocking minority to support
you and, forgive me, but you are probably too young to remember
that in 1984 Peter Walker used the Luxembourg compromise and was
rolled over because he could not get a blocking minority to support
him, so the veto in fact never used to work, unless you could
get other people to join in with you and sympathise with you.
In fact, in my time, a number of delegations were under a standing
instruction that, if any delegation declared a vital national
interest, they were, regardless of the facts, to support that
delegation to encourage the so-called Luxembourg compromise to
work. Now, my question is this: how will it still be possible
for a country with a vital national interest which says it is
so and it needs to get a blocking minority to support it, which
I imagine would still delay agreement if you got the blocking
minority? Surely that, as I understand it, will still operate
and the so-called veto, which we used to call the "Luxembourg
compromise", would still operate if a country declared a
vital national interest and could get enough countries to support
it. For instance, is the British delegation, at the various facets
of the Council, still under a standing instruction, as they were
in my time, that, if anybody did declare a vital national interest,
they were willy-nilly to support it, and do you know of other
delegations which are also under an equal instruction, which I
could name, but I will not, which, in my time, were always in
that position?
Mr Murphy: You are right, my Lord, that I cannot
recall 1984 and the case of Peter Walker. I think at the time
I was living in South Africa which is my excuse for not reading
the detail at the time. First of all, there are two ways to respond
to this. Firstly, on the system of double majority voting, which
I accept is not the general point you have made, it is our view
that this new system will give us a greater opportunity, where
we so wish, to gather a blocking minority, not only because our
own share of the vote on a blocking minority is up, but also,
in our assessment of the previous occasions on which we have sought
to achieve a blocking minority, our retrospective analysis makes
us comfortable with this new system in terms of what we wish to
achieve. In terms of the Luxembourg compromise, it is my understanding,
and your Lordship did not suggest that this was the case, but
it has never been a Treaty agreement, it has been a political
agreement and that still stands. Now, what we have to do in each
instance of course is to ensure that we examine the detail of
the suggestion that it is a vital national interest, but, where
we are convinced that that is the case, we have still a great
deal of sympathy from the United Kingdom and other Member States
for the spirit and the logic of the Luxembourg compromise and
it is not affected by the Treaty.
Q262 Lord Jopling:
Is the British delegation under an instruction to support a country
that declares a vital national interest?
Mr Murphy: Well, under an arrangement, if someone
declares it, we examine it to come to a view as to whether it
is a legitimate claim and, when it is a legitimate claim, we would
work with others to respect that vital national interest, but
I am sure your Lordship would accept that we do not, nor should
we ever, take as unconditional, superficial and at face value
the claim by another about it being a vital national interest,
but, where it is proven to be the case, the United Kingdom Government
is sympathetic to that political arrangement that has been in
place for many years, yes.
Chairman: There is a blocking minority at this
end of the table that wants to move on to the next question, but
I will take two quick ones on this and then we will move on.
Q263 Lord Sewel:
Why is it that this question on the changes to the rules of qualified
majority voting is always sort of discussed and couched in a very
sort of defensive, negative way? Surely the real benefit to the
United Kingdom Government is that the changes in the rules mean
that it will be easier for the UK Government to get its proposals
adopted and not be blocked by a totally unrepresentative minority.
Mr Murphy: I think your Lordship is absolutely
correct, but unfortunately, and I do not know if I have reflected
on this before, the fact is that sometimes the conversation about
Europe is trapped in a dialogue about a double negative, that,
"Europe is a real threat, but don't worry, we're protecting
you from it". Now that we have the Treaty, we have the formal
text and we have achieved our red lines, protocols, opt-ins and
opt-outs, there is an opportunity now in the new year, as we seek
to ratify the Lisbon Treaty through Parliament, to be positive
about the impact of the Treaty and, more widely, positive about
the importance of Europe in our foreign policy. I think, without
drawing your Lordships into a wider debate, for those who say
that the Reform Treaty is not necessary, I am not aware of their
considered alternative in terms of how a Europe of 27 countries
can change its rules to be effective, and those who oppose our
membership of the European Union more generally, I cannot conceive
of a coherent British national interest foreign policy assessment
which it does not have as an active member of the European Union.
A world without the European Union, I think, would be a less prosperous
and less fair place and the European Union, as the Foreign Secretary
has said recently, has the opportunity to be a model power in
the world and that is part of the argument we seek to make as
we ratify the Reform Treaty. Unfortunately, and perhaps inevitably,
my Lord, I have to set out the statistics and the facts for the
record and I think the opportunity for rhetoric and high-minded
politics, if I ever reach that, is for another time, perhaps at
the second reading of the EU Amendment Bill, but we are certainly
determined to make the positive case for the Treaty and, more
widely, the positive case for the European Union.
Q264 Lord Kerr of Kinlochard:
I admire your self-restraint, Minister. Also, in your answer to
Lord Jopling's question, I suppose you could have said that the
Luxembourg compromise was always opposed as a matter of theology
by some Member States, like the Germans, who were under instructions
always to vote against a Member State who was invoking the Luxembourg
compromise. It mutated in the 1990s into the Ioannina compromise,
which became a Union text which everybody accepted, negotiated
by Solana and Lord Hurd. Now, thanks to your diplomacy and maybe
a little more to Polish diplomacy, it has mutated into the Treaty
and there it is now, in the form, as I understand it, of a version
which allows for further time for discussion if a Member State
is in serious trouble and concerned about a national interest.
Is that correct?
Mr Murphy: That is correct. The proposal in
the Reform Treaty is to move to this new system by transition
from 2007 to 2014. In the interim, a Member State has the opportunity
to request a vote by the old system, so we try it on the DMV and,
if a Member State still requests it, they can say, "Well,
let's try it under the old rules, under QMV", and, if we
cannot work it out that way in this transitional period under
an Ioannina compromise, the idea would be that there would then
be responsibility on, I think it is, the Council to find a commonsense
way forward that meets everyone's concerns, but that is a protection
that is now in there. It is partly driven by the Poles of course,
but that is now in there and I think it is a pretty important
kind of staging post to move towards this new system in 2014,
and thank you for your comment about my self-restraint. Really
what I have decided to do is to take a self-denying ordinance
and I would enjoy it if all politicians of other Member State
did the same over the next six months. I do not see the attraction
for our position by defining us against another Member State and
that is my general approach.
Q265 Lord Jopling:
Can I just point out that in my presence, although the Germans
opposed the Luxembourg Compromise, Mr Keichle actually used it.
Mr Murphy: Perhaps it would be important also
to say, and I am not sure if everyone in the country will be following
the detail of this sentence, but the Ioannina arrangements and
the Luxembourg Compromise will operate in tandem for this period
as well, so that is an important, perhaps double, protection.
Q266 Lord Maclennan of Rogart:
I wonder if we might move on to the authority of the Commission
and, in particular, of its President and I wonder if you think
that the elevation in, for example, the role of the High Representative
and the strengthening of the position of the President of the
Council have, together with the provisions for the election of
the President of the Commission by the Parliament on the commendation
of the Council taking account of the results in an election, affected
the role and authority of the President of the Commission.
Mr Murphy: This phrase about taking account
of the results of the European elections was another one of those
phrases that a number of people have made enquiries about and
made all sorts of suggestions about, that it guarantees that the
predominant political grouping that wins the elections has greater
powers as a consequence. If one reflects on the current situation,
it is that a nominee is put to the Parliament and the European
Parliament either assents or disagrees to the proposal and that
will still be the case under the Lisbon Treaty. What is different
is that phrase, "taking account of the election results of
the European Parliament". Now, in truth, it is a statement
of the political reality because, even though that phrase does
not exist at the moment in the Treaty, the fact is that a candidate
proposed to the European Parliament that did not command the support
of the majority of the European Parliament would not be elected
by the European Parliament, so, in an operational sense, a practical
sense and even a political sense, that changed phraseology has
no impact; it simply codifies the Treaty, the current arrangements
as they stand. In terms of whether the Commission has more power
or less, the powers have not increased for the President of the
Commission and those are established in the Treaty of Nice, but
my sense, and I tangentially referred to this earlier, of the
increased influence of the President of the Commission will come
about by the Commission itself being more effective and, therefore,
gaining greater respect and consent, and I think that is the prize
that would lead to greater influence, but in itself the formal
powers have not changed.
Q267 Lord Maclennan of Rogart:
You earlier suggested, Minister, that the reduction in size of
the Commission might actually enhance its effectiveness and I
suppose it follows from that that you think the President may
be more effective as a consequence of that, but why, and I am
sorry to revert to this phrase, was this phrase inserted if, as
you suggest, it had no meaning in an operative sense?
Mr Murphy: Well, I am happy to seek to find
the genesis of the phrase, but the consequence of the phrase simply,
in a pretty clear sense, reflects current practice. Your Lordship
will be aware that it is about taking account of the results of
the European elections. A nominee to the European Parliament that
did not in any way command the support of the Members of the European
Parliament, as elected at the European elections, would not be
successful in any case, but I will, if your Lordships wish me
to, happily seek the origin of the exact phrase.
Q268 Lord Maclennan of Rogart:
I have some recollection of it, as a matter of fact, with respect,
but now there is another issue. Supposing a political party or
a political family which emerged after the election had announced
prior to the election that it would propose to nominate a particular
individual as President of the Commission if it were successful
in the election, would it not be somewhat strengthened by the
formulation that is included now?
Mr Murphy: I am not sure it would, my Lord,
on the basis that it is the European Council that considers, and
makes, the nomination.
Q269 Lord Maclennan of Rogart:
But, if the European People's Party were the largest party there
and had said, "We propose to support so-and-so", would
that not be a factor that might be taken into account?
Mr Murphy: It may be, but, without wandering
into the internal disagreements and dynamics of the European People's
Party, I think it would be an achievement if they were to agree
on one nominee in advance of an election. I do not want to get
involved in the party politics of it, but the internal dynamic
of that grouping, as of any European political family, as you
well know, are multi-dimensional and personally I would be surprised
if, one, they were able to, two, they chose to and, three, I think
it would seem in many capitals to be extraordinarily presumptuous.
Ultimately, the relationship and accountability is from the European
Council to the European Parliament and, therefore, even if they
were to make a declaration, if they were to arrive at a declaration,
they would have no formal influence, but of course informally,
you are right, it would send a signal to say, "If you don't
nominate one of our family, then we're not interested", but
there is no sense that that is what is currently being considered
at all.
Q270 Chairman:
This is a question which I think we will probably continue to
look at very carefully because the fact remains that nobody is
going to be elected President of the Commission who does not have
the support of the majority in the European Parliament and it
is not very hard to identify what that majority is once the elections
have taken place. That is not going to change in effect from what
we have had before and I would assume that no nominee for the
Commission President who does not have the support of the largest
political group is likely to be elected, unless it is such an
outstanding candidate that the EPP will be happy to vote for somebody
who was clearly the standard-bearer of a different group.
Mr Murphy: Of course, that is what already happens
in terms of a proposal is made to the Parliament and the Parliament
votes for or against that nominee. That will be the situation
if indeed the Treaty is ratified across Europe as well.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
Let us now move on to the European Parliament.
Q271 Lord Sewel:
This is a question which starts at the general level and then
gets particular. Generally, what will be the impact of the Reform
Treaty on the European Parliament? How extensive are the Parliament's
new legislative and other powers? Then we get more particular
and ask you the impact of those powers on the EU and the UK, with
particular reference to (a) the move to co-decision making in
agriculture and fisheries, and there the lurking question is does
it make agricultural reform more or less likely if we move to
co-decision making, and (b) the amendment to the budgetary process.
Mr Murphy: You would not thank me, your Lordship,
but we could spend the whole of this afternoon just on that one
relatively short question. Our response would be the likely impact
first of all would be that we will have slower legislation. Inevitably
there will be a delay on occasion in the process as others seek
to debate, as entirely entitled to do so as part of the agreement.
I think I am right in saying there are 40 moves to co-decision
envisaged here. In terms of agriculture and fishing, it will probably
be slower but it is important to mention that when there is need
for urgent action there is still a route to take urgent action
where human or animal wellbeing and health is going to be affected.
In terms of the budget, it is a pretty technical response. The
European Parliament currently has co-decision over the annual
budget, not the seven year Financial Perspective of course. The
Parliament has co-decision now over the non-compulsory expenditure;
everything except Common Agricultural Policy. Under the proposals
on co-decision it gets co-decision over compulsory expenditure,
including CAP; it does not get co-decision at all over the seven
year Financial Perspective, that is still an issue for Member
States to be decided by unanimity. Finally, on the wider point
about agriculture and fishing, I believe that Sub-Committee D
is looking at this in some detail and Defra are in the process
of responding.
Chairman: Lord Sewel is the Chairman
of that Sub-Committee.
Q272 Lord Sewel:
That is why I am asking the question you see.
Mr Murphy: I need to shoot my researcher! I
was not aware of that.
Q273 Lord Sewel:
This is an interesting one, is it not? All UK governments have
put a pretty high priority on reform of the CAP, we get co-decision
bringing the Parliament in in a much stronger way. Is it your
instinctive view that that will help or hinder the process of
reform?
Mr Murphy: There is party political leadership
at prime ministerial and presidential level. The Foreign Office
reading is that there is an emerging consensus that the reform
not only should take place but will take place. We are about to
enter into the process of just what exactly that means. President
Sarkozy has spoken about the need for radical reform of the Common
Agricultural Policy. There are different definitions and analyses
of what "radical reform" means in practice. Our view
is that amongst the Members of the European Parliament there is
a real determination in principle amongst the majority to reform
the agricultural policy. Not unanimity but the majority. We think
that can be a useful lever in the process of change.
Q274 Lord Plumb:
Minister, I am one of Lord Sewel's boys on his Committee and we
are about to come to a conclusion on the CAP reform which may
interest you. You did not mention agriculture and fisheries or
budgetary procedure under the five formal extensions of power
and influence, but it does change the power, not so much as budget
is concerned although, as you say, the compulsory expenditure
is outwith the responsibility of the Parliament, and agriculture,
of course, has never been within it in any case. It is sometimes
said that the European Parliament does give way on budgets but
I can tell you when I was President of the Parliament I refused
to accept it twice, so it has had some responsibility and it did
hold up the budget for quite a long period of time, quite rightly
at that time. On agriculture and fisheries, what effect do you
think this is really going to have? You have said already that
it may hold up procedure but I would not be too sure about that
because I think there is an attitude there which recognises the
need for reform and a lot of people are beginning to believe that
the sooner we get on with it the better and that goes throughout
the whole of Europe from the evidence we have received already
in Sub-Committee D.
Mr Murphy: On the specific point about slowing
up procedures, I was talking about specific legislative proposals
rather than agricultural reform whereby the opportunity for Members
of the European Parliament to become involved in the debate and
deliberate through the relevant committees and perhaps in plenary
session as well will inevitably lead, at least initially, to some
delay in the process of specific proposals. I cannot recall whether
the REACH Directive was delayed. It was certainly improved but
I think it was also delayed as a consequence of deliberation.
It is that type of thing, the assessment that would delay but
potentially improve. In terms of wider agricultural reform, there
is not an assessment that says co-decision of that sort would
slow that wider process. There is a growing political consensus
left, right and centre amongst Member States and political families
in the European Parliament that this should now take place. What
I did not mention earlier in answer to the first question from
my Lord Chairman on the extensions of the competence, and there
were five specifics in these articles and I think there are 12
existing competences that were extended, was the other 12 because
the first five I mentioned were extensions of new competences
extended through the five articles that I mentioned, starting
with space policy.
Q275 Lord Plumb:
Do I take it that you would generally agree with the co-decision
procedure?
Mr Murphy: Yes, I think it is an important reform.
Q276 Lord Kerr of Kinlochard:
I am not a member of Lord Sewel's gumboot gang but I was struck
by his mention of the changes to the budgetary procedure. As Lord
Plumb says, that is quite a big change and perhaps bigger than
the co-decision change. As I understand it, up to now the Parliament
has been no allowed say on dépenses obligatoires
which includes two-thirds, three-quarters of the agriculture budget,
none at all. As I understand it, there is a large urban majority
in the European Parliament, there are many more urban constituencies
than rural constituencies, and agriculture provides about four
per cent of European GDP. It seems to me unthinkable that, when
the Parliament is allowed an equal say on agriculture as on all
other bits of the budget, agriculture will go on getting the paramount
share of the budget. It seems to me that the Parliament's influence
is bound to be to reduce the amount of agricultural support as
a proportion of the European budget. Is that wrong?
Mr Murphy: First of all, good luck in your aspirations
to join the noble Lord's Committee. I do not know if that was
a hustings speech or not! The general analysis is an entirely
fair one. I do not want to second-guess it but the general assessment
is that involving the politics and the energy of the European
Parliament can be an additional driver of this momentum. The rural/urban
split is a commonsense analysis of where populations lie and where
the parliamentary seats are divided, but primarily in the European
Parliament's set-up and internal relationships it is not that
straightforward, and probably nor should it be, because quite
fairly there is a good number of urban Members of the European
Parliament who emotionally and practically for all sorts of different
reasons have a real affection for agriculture, fishing, farming,
and that is entirely right and proper. In general terms the co-decision
role of the European Parliament on Common Agricultural Policy
is a positive and it can help the process.
Chairman: Let us move on to the fourth
of the institutions we are discussing, the European Court.
Q277 Lord Harrison:
Minister, do you agree that the most significant change to the
jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is its extension
to matters relating to Freedom, Security and Justice? In the light
of that, are you confident that the Court will be able to cope
with an increased workload following from, first of all, the Commission's
power to bring infringement proceedings in relation to criminal
law and policing measures and, secondly, the extended preliminary
reference jurisdiction in both existing Title IV, referring to
visas, asylum and immigration, and Title VI, police and judicial
co-operation in criminal matters? Given the importance of the
ECJ and the necessity for having it sufficiently staffed but also
staffed by those of the highest quality, are you confident that
can and should happen?
Mr Murphy: First of all it should happen. We
are certain it should happen because the role of the ECJ is absolutely
essential, which partly means that it has to have both the quality
and quantity of people necessary for it to perform its role. It
is also important to acknowledge that we should not overstate
the extension of ECJ competence in terms of Justice and Home Affairs.
It is not a year one, day one extension on these transitionary
measures in particular, there is a five year transitionary period.
There will be a gradual build-up which will give the ECJ the opportunity
to build capacity as each of these specific defined areas move
from Pillar 3 to Pillar 1 over that five year period. So there
is an opportunity to participate and learn from the experience
of that transition, but it is important that we do get it right.
In terms of the second wider point about the infringement and
preliminary references, there is a proposal now to put in place
fast-track mechanisms which generally are welcomed across the
European Union. The analysis at the moment is that the backlog
on ECJ referrals is reducing, so there are some positive signs.
Also, the expansion of the European Union has brought a new group
of judges and expanded the capacity of the judges in terms of
numbers and, despite some reports, it has expanded the quality
of the judges. There is a supply of good quality, high calibre
judges. What I would say is do not overstate the scale of the
change. Of course there will be a change but it will be a gradual
change and we think mechanisms are being put in place to deal
with those changes.
Q278 Lord Harrison:
I very much accept that answer but, given the nature of Freedom,
Security and Justice matters, there is the element of a Pandora's
Box that in that five year period when those areas are brought
into play things could not spin out of control but there could
be more references than otherwise might be expected.
Mr Murphy: The number of references has stabilised
at about 250 per annum at the moment and that is a relatively
stable figure. As I say, there is a period of gradual change.
If the transition was over a month or three months then those
concerns would have added validity, but that transitionary period
of five years does give space to anticipate workload and adjust
the transition accordingly.
Q279 Lord Wright of Richmond:
Minister, I think possibly you have just answered my next question.
We have had conflicting evidence from witnesses as to whether
the Court is likely to become flooded with asylum cases. Do you
have a view on that?
Mr Murphy: I do not believe that it will on
the basis that, rather than me believing it, the evidence suggests
strongly to the contrary, the number of cases having been stabilised.
The worry is about delay in processes which comes back to the
question posed earlier. We have to continue with the stabilised
number of 250 and with the backlog reducing the evidence strongly
points to the contrary.
|
