Examination of Witnesses (Questions 380
- 389)
THURSDAY 10 JANUARY 2008
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne QC DL
Q380 Lord Kerr of Kinlochard:
Which is perhaps dangerous for the long term acceptability of
qualified majority voting in a country like Germany, so palpably
under-represented in the voting system?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: I do agree with
that. My instinct is wholly to say that the change in the arrangements
is a beneficial one. Having been told about a contrary view put
forward from a respectable academic source, I cannot just say
that that is rubbish. My inclination is to hope and believe that
it probably is.
Q381 Lord Powell of Bayswater:
Coming to a subject which you were particularly concerned with,
that of competition, the draft Constitutional Treaty had the reference
to "undistorted competition" which is dropped from the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, relegated to
a protocol or a declaration. I cannot remember which. We have
been assured in Brussels and elsewhere that this has no practical
significance. Does it worry you that it is an undesirable political
signal and it may be used as an excuse for trying to undermine
European competition policy or to encourage protection of national
champions?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: The important
thing to remember is that nothing has been changed leading to
the weakening of competition policy compared with the existing
law. What we saw was an attempt to include the concept of competition,
free and undistorted, in the formal objectives. That attempt was
politically seen off but there was then a fight back led from
this country which led to the protocol saying that the internal
market includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted,
which is legally binding, so it is a sort of score draw really
as far as that political game is concerned. Granted, nothing was
actually changed. Granted, the competition Directorate General
will be as vigorous and active as ever on the state aid side and
on the cartel side. Granted, this political foreplay if one can
so call it just falls by the way once the Treaty comes into existence.
I do not myself believe that it will have a harmful effect. Whether
it was really meant to have a harmful effect in the sense of leading
to a change in the way competition policy is implemented or whether
it was merely meant to give a political signal in a particular
country that we are standing up and fighting for our particular
concept I do not know. Either way, I do not believe—granted,
both the legal situation and the undoubted continued intention
of the Commission to continue with the competition policy exactly
as it has been in the past—it will make any difference.
What is important and interesting is that there have been a succession
of Commissioners from different countries with different political
backgrounds who have followed precisely the same line. People
were very worried when Karl van Miert took over as a Belgian socialist
about what was going to happen and when there might be a French
Commissioner and so on, but in fact it has carried on. The strength
of the tradition is enduring and in the absence of absolutely
constraining words which will change that—which is not so;
quite the reverse—I do not think that is going to change.
Q382 Lord Powell of Bayswater:
That is very reassuring and I hope very much you are right. It
is just that the political orientation behind the attempt to remove
it and the fact that it was successfully removed from the draft
Treaty does suggest that maybe the battle is not over.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: Battles are never
"over" in the European Union. They are very often won
and this one has been won for about 40 years. I can quite understand
why you are expressing concerns. If you were from the other side
of the Channel you might say, "This is a pyrrhic victory;
we got this knocked out but we got the protocol put in instead
and there seemed to be sufficient political support to put that
back in." I would be more persuaded by the worriers if the
worriers spoke also about the victories as well as the so-called
political defeats. I do not think either of them will make a scrap
of difference.
Q383 Chairman:
At the time this happened, we know what President Sarkozy's initiative
was all about and there was some initial concern that this might
weaken the resolve of the European Court of Justice in dealing
with competition cases because they might sense that there was
a weakening of resolve within the EU generally on this. I think
all the evidence we have heard since then, including from a former
judge of the European Court, is that they would not be influenced
in this way.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: Frankly, I think
sufficient time has passed for it not to be necessary for me to
conceal this. I was approached by the Commission and they said,
"Look, this has happened; something needs to be done."
I got on to the British Government and action was taken which
led to the protocol. If the protocol had not been introduced,
perhaps it would have had the effect but the fact that there was
sufficient support to get the protocol approved produced what
I call a score draw, which meant that you were back to where you
were before, which was an effective competition policy.
Q384 Lord Dykes:
Coming back to the problems of scale, including the economic policy,
the corporate policy and all that, do you foresee the Council
of Ministers being keen on seeing European champions emerging
rather than national champions or is it just pie in the sky?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: That is a complicated
and different issue. It depends what you mean by "European
champions". I think everybody would like to see strong European
companies but there is a recognition, certainly within the Commission—and
that is what I fought for very hard with a measure of success—of
the view that a company which only derives its strength from having
a domestic monopoly—domestic in this context means a European
monopoly—is not going to be a world beater because it will
have a soft home market which will make it more likely to be uncompetitive
abroad. That is the dominant vision certainly in the Commission
today and I think it will continue.
Q385 Lord Jopling:
So far as the UK is concerned, which do you think are the most
significant institutional changes which we are going to face?
We have talked about the lack of a Commissioner but what are the
others?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: The increase in
the number of votes that we will have is important but probably
the one that will be most interesting perhaps in this room is
the enhanced role of national parliaments, which I think is something
of quite considerable importance. If you are talking about specific
things, that is what I would say. I hope as a Member State that
will play, I hope, an increasingly active and positive role in
Europe, we will benefit from the general strengthening of the
European Union that the Treaty will produce. The specifics are
those. I am not talking about the defensive ones about red lines
and that kind of stuff. I regard those as being political necessary
but not necessarily hugely beneficial.
Q386 Lord Jopling:
As you know, I am no Eurosceptic but what would you think were
the two or three most difficult points to answer which Eurosceptics
are likely to use in the months ahead?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: That is asking
for an effort of the imagination which I am not sure that I am
capable of. I do not think Eurosceptics will get on to this point
because it is not the kind of thing they would do. I do think
that the business of the High Representative's relationship with
the Commission and Member States is the most serious, real point
but we all know that Eurosceptics do not necessarily go for the
most serious, real points. They will simply go for the increase
in the number of issues with qualified majority voting. That is
the only real thing they have got to go on. We all know what the
Government has said about that and I agree with it, about the
subjects being ones which we will benefit from rather than lose
from. I basically agree with Margaret Thatcher's view when she
supported and invited us on a three line whip to support the single
European Act with its much more substantial increase in qualified
majority voting than anything that this Treaty presents. I think
she was right then.
Q387 Lord Harrison:
Given your view that perhaps the most important change is the
role of the national parliaments and perhaps this Chamber in respect
of the United Kingdom, do you think and believe that we have to
reform ourselves and our practices so that we can perform well,
better than we do at the moment, the job of responding to the
Commission in a quick, athletic and positive way which I think
is implied by this new role?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: I suspect the
answer is yes but I have not been sufficiently quick and athletic
to be able to say how that should be done.
Q388 Chairman:
Could I raise one other problem that we have been wrestling with?
This has come up in evidence that has been given to us. Much has
been made of the fact that the national parliaments now have eight
weeks in which to make their reasoned considerations of draft
legislation. The problem is that an awful lot of the codecisions
are taken at first reading now which means that it is all practically
wrapped up right at the very beginning of the eight week period.
Therefore, there is an argument for saying that the role of national
parliaments is much diminished by the fact that, by the time they
have geared up to use their eight weeks, things have pretty well
been wrapped up in the European Parliament.
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: I cannot pretend
that I have given this adequate thought to feel comfortable with
the answer but I suspect that what is really necessary is for
national parliaments to exert their influence and indeed their
power, which in a democracy is ultimately supreme, in discussing
with governments of individual countries the way in which European
issues are presented to Parliament at an early enough time for
Parliament to exercise the role granted it by the Treaty. I do
not have specifics in mind but I suspect that that is what it
will come to.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard: I had the impression
that the text prohibited the Council and Parliament from proceeding
before the expiry of the period. It is certainly the case—and
it is a good thing—that as the Parliament and the Council
engage less in institutional battles and address the substance
of the proposal more readily the negotiation between the two institutions
can be very rapid indeed, but I think the period in question for
national parliamentary scrutiny in advance has to be in advance
of that period of negotiation between the Council and the Parliament.
Chairman: I hope that is right. I am sure you
are right but nonetheless this has been raised several times by
people as being not clear. Let us check it and see.
Q389 Lord Roper:
In order to have effective parliamentary scrutiny and control,
there are some people in this country who are suggesting that
we should perhaps follow the approach which was adopted initially
by Denmark and is now being followed by Finland. I wonder whether
you could give us from your own experience what you see as the
advantages and disadvantages of moving in that direction?
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: From my experience
the balance is wholly negative. I would strongly counsel against
such a procedure. If you have a country saying, "I am sorry,
I cannot say what I think because I have not consulted Parliament
yet" it may sound wonderfully democratic but it reduces the
influence of such a country in the deliberations because they
just become a bore and a nuisance. That is my frank view.
Chairman: If there are no further questions,
thank you very much indeed, Lord Brittan. That was extremely enlightening
and very interesting. Thank you for dealing with all of our questions.
We will send you the transcript and you will see our report which
we hope to have out some time in advance of the ratification Bill
coming into the House. Thank you very much indeed.
| 
