Examination of Witnesses (Questions 348
- 359)
THURSDAY 10 JANUARY 2008
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne QC DL
Q348 Chairman:
Lord Brittan, we are very delighted to see you here. It is kind
of you to give us of your valuable time. We felt that our inquiry
would not complete without hearing from you. You have in front
of you a list of the relevant interests of the Members for the
record. We will send you the transcript after the event and we
are on the record. I believe you would like to make an opening
statement. Please go ahead.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: I am delighted
to be here. I just wanted to indicate at the outset my basic position
on the Treaty. I regard it as being modest in scope but both necessary
and useful. I think it will lead to greater efficiency, increase
the chances of reaching agreements in the European Union and will
make the European Union where agreement is reached—for example
in the area of foreign policy—more effective in the implementation
of its policies. I do not regard it as a Treaty that hands power
in any significant way to the European Union institutions beyond
what they already have. Of course it introduces a new element
for the benefit of the Member States in the greatly enhanced role
of national parliaments with the yellow card and orange card system
and, from the point of view of this country, the reweighting of
votes gives Britain more influence in the Council of Ministers
than it otherwise would have. I think the mistake was to call
the old Treaty a constitution in the first place. Neither it nor
the present Treaty justifies that description.
Q349 Chairman:
You wrote a very informative and, if I may say so, a very entertaining
book called A Diet of Brussels some years back on your
experiences in the Commission and, although in a slightly different
context, you wrote there that the concept of what is the touchstone
of sovereignty changes quite radically over the years. I think
that was in the course of a chapter about economic policy. Do
you feel that the statement about the concept of the touchstone
of sovereignty changing radically is reflected in any way in this
Treaty?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: On any view of
sovereignty this Treaty does not involve a substantial transfer
of sovereignty or indeed any significant transfer of sovereignty.
What I meant when I wrote that book was that, whereas a century
ago, the great debates in British politics were over free trade
and trade policy, I found that conferring upon the European Union
and the Commission in particular the competence on trade was something
that was not challenged much even by the most extreme Euro-sceptics.
A century ago we did not have control over monetary policy because
we were on the gold standard. Now, the big debate about the euro
is related in part to sovereignty so that shows how the concept
of sovereignty does change. On any view, this Treaty, whatever
view you take of sovereignty, old or new, I do not think amounts
to a fresh transfer of sovereignty to any significant extent.
Q350 Chairman:
Could we move to the institution which you served with great distinction
as a Commissioner? Do you think that as a result of this Treaty
it will be able to conduct its business more effectively and will
the President gain or lose authority?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: In principle and
in theory the President gains authority because of having the
right to in effect sack members of the Commission. The present
President demanded of incoming members of the Commission that
they hand an undated resignation chit to him in any event, so
I am not sure that that is going to make a great deal of practical
difference. The Commission as a whole will become more efficient
simply because it will be smaller in size, which I think means
a greater degree of efficiency. For example, when I was there—and
it had been increasing in size while I was there—increasingly
if any subject was thought to be of any real importance there
was felt to be an obligation to have a tour de table in
which every member of the Commission felt he had to express a
view. That of course took an enormous amount of time, reduced
the possibility of real debate and made the whole thing less efficient.
Also, if the Treaty as a whole makes the European Union more efficient,
that is to the benefit of all its institutions including the Commission
because it knows that what it says and does is more likely, if
accepted by the Member States, to be implemented in an effective
way. As to the balance between the institutions, I do think that
the creation of the High Representative presents a complication
as far as the Commission is concerned. I do not think there is
any doubt about that. If you want to talk about the distribution
of powers between the different institutions as opposed to between
the Member States and institutions, I think there is no doubt
at all that this re-ordering of affairs leads to more power for
the Member States as expressed in the European Council, if you
like at the expense of the Commission.
Q351 Chairman:
Does the fact that the election of the President of the Commission
by the European Parliament will have to take into account the
composition of the Parliament mean that in future all presidents
of the Commission will in fact reflect or be drawn from the ranks
of supporters of the majority party?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: I hope not. As
we all know from experience in other spheres, "taking into
account" does not mean the same as "following".
In practice, what it will mean is that it would be difficult for
Member States to come up with a proposed president who was known
to be violently contradictory to and opposed to the weight of
opinion in the European Parliament. Granted, the European Parliament
does not often have a single party with an overall majority, I
do not think it is going to make as much difference as all that
and, if we talk about institutions, once he is elected he is elected.
He remains primus inter pares and not a dictator. The fact
is that there is this provision with regard to the president and
not with regard to the other members, who have to be supported
by the Parliament as a block and not individually I do not think
the new provision will make that much difference.
Q352 Lord Wade of Chorlton:
Do you welcome the creation of a more permanent President of the
Council and, if so, why?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: I do welcome the
creation of a permanent President of the Council. I think it provides
greater continuity and that is itself a strength. What people
often do not really fully appreciate about the European institutions
is that they really gain their strength by the process of working
together over a period of time, whether it is the Commission,
the Council of Ministers or whatever it is. Having a president
who is there for two and a half years and possibly for five obviously
means that he is going to be working together with his colleagues
and building up relationships and he will know what can and cannot
be done. I think it will make it more effective. It is important
to stress what I said very shortly in the opening statement, that
he is not going to have any more power than the existing president.
He is not going to be able to make things happen, to tell people
what to do, to take decisions which the existing president in
office cannot do. He is going to have the same powers as the existing
president but he is going to have them for longer. Although he
will inevitably come from a particular nationality, particularly
as time goes on, he will not be the spokesman of a particular
nationality. Although very often presidents try to take on a role
different from the country from which they come and go beyond
that, even doing things which they would not have done had they
just been ordinary members of the European Council, nonetheless
they are from a particular country operating and trying to achieve
results that will redound to the credit of that country; whereas
a more permanent president will not do that. For all those reasons
I do welcome this proposal which I think was first put forward
by Britain.
Q353 Lord Wade of Chorlton:
On our recent visit to Brussels there were a number of things
we learned but particularly was the fact that there is still a
great deal of work to do to make this Treaty practically work
effectively. Second was the issue of the role of the Council.
When we asked, "Is it going to work properly?" the answers
were that it would depend upon the personalities and the attitudes
of those who got these various roles. In looking further at the
Treaty, would you think there are ways that you could make it
so that it is likely to work a little more effectively than it
might work as it is left at present?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: If I had carte
blanche to write the Treaty, I do not think I would have wanted
to write into it more provisions which would make it more likely
to work than there are at the moment. The extent to which it works
is dependent on personalities and working practices rather than
any further or different treaty language.
Q354 Lord Jopling:
You say you do not think the Council presidency will have more
power but I am talking of a peripheral matter really. The Council
presidency will have more power by virtue of the fact that it
is going to be there longer. I can remember years ago, in preparing
for the British presidency, discussion revolving around, "Can
we get that done in the six months?" and of course if the
new Council presidency has a longer view of the matter that will
bring with it a certain amount of extra power. I think you might
agree about that?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: I do agree with
the substance of it. It is just a question of the words used.
It will be more effective but what I meant was it is not giving
him any formal powers that the existing President does not have.
Hopefully, in the way that you have such personal experience of,
it will lead to that. I remember it was sometimes said to an incoming
president that what you have to realise is that you can only start
things off or finish them off. You can start the ball rolling
and you can finish things off that are close to the boil but you
cannot do the whole thing with any particular subject.
Q355 Lord Roper:
I wonder whether that you would like to say anything more about
the relationship of the Commission's President with this new European
Council President and indeed with the High Representative who
will both be chosen by the Council but will also be a member of
the Commission?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: As far as the
relationship between the Commission President and the Council
President, in principle as far as the legal requirements and the
provisions of the Treaty are concerned, it will be no different
from what it is at present. No new powers are conferred. As Lord
Jopling says, in practice he will become more effective. People
who are more effective are in a sense more powerful, not in the
sense that they have been given more power but because they have
achieved more power. To that extent there is a change. I do not
mind admitting though that as far as the Higher Representative
is concerned, that is the part of the Treaty that troubles me
most in the sense that he is a very curious, hybrid creature.
He is in the Commission but he is also a creature of the European
Council and the Council of Ministers. I note from what is said
in the new Article 9E that he shall ensure the consistency of
the Union's external action. "He or she shall be responsible
within the Commission for responsibilities incumbent on it in
its external relations and for coordinating other aspects of the
Union's external action." All that is fine. It is just what
a present member of the Commission with those responsibilities
does. It goes on to say, "In exercising these responsibilities
within the Commission and only for these responsibilities the
Higher Representative shall be bound by Commission procedures
to the extent that this is consistent with paragraphs 2 and 3",
which say that he is a creature of the European Council. Who is
to decide when those responsibilities end and when it is consistent
with paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 or not? I do see fruit for problems
arising there but again, as has already been said in answer to
the previous question, everything depends on the personalities.
It can be made to work. When the Solana appointment was first
made, it was thought that there would be great conflict with the
Commission and there were people in the Commission who wanted
to spend all their time arguing about whether he was taking power
away from them and trying to fight turf battles. Fortunately,
Chris Patten and Solana were absolutely determined not to play
that game. I am not saying that their staff in particular did
not have spats and turf battles but they realised that there was
an overriding interest in not doing that. Let us hope that that
applies to the new High Representative. It is made more difficult
by the fact that he is actually in the Commission as well as being
an emanation of the Council. To deny that that is a complex and
potentially problematic procedure would be to blind oneself to
reality but I cannot pretend that I have thought of anything better.
Q356 Lord Roper:
The section you quoted does show one other potential problem because
he has a double function in the Commission. He fulfils the present
function of the Commission who is responsible for external relations
and then it goes on: "He coordinates the external actions",
and therefore he is as it were primus interpares among
all of those, presumably the Commissioner for Trade, the Commissioner
for Development and perhaps the Commissioner for Enlargement,
because those are the other external actions of the Union as distinct
from the external relations which are at present the function
of one. Do you see that as a potential problem?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: Possibly, yes.
What does "coordinate" mean? "Coordinate"
does not mean "dictate". Is he chairing it? What is
he doing? Yes, I think all this has to be worked out and that
it is complex I do not deny. That it is potentially problematic
I do not deny. Is there a better way of doing it than that which
is in the Treaty? I cannot think of one. That something like it
needed to be done I would affirm and assert.
Q357 Lord Wright of Richmond:
In your introductory remarks you said that you thought the Reform
Treaty would make the European Union more effective in foreign
policy. We have tried with other witnesses to get some view on
first of all how the Middle East Quartet representation is working
and, secondly, the extent to which the Reform Treaty will change
that representation. I know this all post-dates your time as a
Commissioner but do you have any thoughts on that?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: Yes, I do. I think
it will be more effective in the sense that I do not think it
will increase the likelihood of there being an agreement within
the Member States such as to create a European policy on a particular
subject, except insofar as the continuity point arises and, by
working together with people over a period of time and seeing
what is possible and what is not possible, it may increase the
chances of reaching agreement. On that we cannot be sure. On the
other hand, when it is a question of implementing an agreement
that has already been achieved—for example, to do something
in a particular area—then I think the new arrangements will
mean that there is a single voice which speaks for the EU and
organises and implements it. In a sense, there is a takeover of
the Commission delegations which will be enhanced also and they
will be made more fully diplomatic missions. They have been the
tools of the EU. I think there is reason to hope that it will
increase the chances of reaching more agreements on European Union
policies and I feel confident that where such agreements are reached
it will lead to a more effective implementation of those policies.
Q358 Lord Wright of Richmond:
Is it your understanding that the personalities will change?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: What do you mean
by that?
Q359 Lord Wright of Richmond:
Representing the European Union at the Middle East Quartet.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: This is not on
any view going to come into force for a year or more.
| 
