Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
WEDNESDAY 16 JANUARY 2008
Lord Rooker
Q1 Chairman:
Thank you very much for coming. The Lisbon Treaty and its impact
really on Defra's areas of responsibility and how we go forward.
We set it out in terms of various different topic areas: climate
change, an interesting one at question three which many of us
have spent some time trying to understand what the question is,
let alone the answer, then we go on to the impact of co-decision
making, fisheries and animal welfare. They are the topics we see
that the Reform Treaty identifies; if you think there are other
things we will be pleased to hear. Do you want to say anything
to begin with, Minister?
Lord Rooker: You have identified the areas okay.
I have to say, just for the avoidance of any doubt and so that
we do not go down that road, this Lisbon Treaty so far as Defra
is concerned has virtually the same impact as would have had the
constitution from our point of view, but it is limited to the
extent that co-decision was there on environmental issues but
not on agriculture, and I suppose that is the biggest change that
we will have to be ready for, but as a department of course we
have enormous experience at dealing with the EU in terms of co-decision
because of the environmental issues to boot. I have to say that
there is a caveat on most of the points in that it does not come
in until January 2009, next year, there are elections to the European
Parliament in the summer, and in terms of co-decision and the
attitude obviously of the Parliament , it is pretty crucial in
a way and one does not know what the make-up of the Parliament
is going to be—if I can put it this way, whether the producer
interests will be so dominant in the various committees. We will
not know that until later.
Chairman: We might be having a discussion
with you on that as we proceed. I wonder if we can kick off with
climate change, Lord Cameron.
Q2 Lord Cameron of Dillington:
Good morning, Minister. It seems quite strange to me to make specific
reference in a constitutional treaty to climate change but the
Lisbon Treaty does do this, and I just wondered what you thought
the practical implications of this might be. Climate change is
quite important, obviously, for our future, but it seems quite
strange to include it in a constitutional treaty, and does it
actually mean that the EU will be dealing with it at an international
level.
Lord Rooker: Basically there is no legal difference
as far as we are concerned having a reference to it in the treaty.
There is the European Emissions Trading System which has had its
first tranche and we are trying to get it up and running the second
time round. I do not say it is a figleaf, but I suppose it would
have been unusual in the sense of the treaty being put together
and climate change being such a big issue where the EU is a negotiating
partner. The Emissions Trading System was probably the first in
the world, so there was an initiation there; there is a reference
to it, but it makes no legal difference and to the best of my
knowledge it does not impact, for example, on the Climate Change
Bill that is going through the House at the moment. I am not saying
it is just a figleaf, but it was a major treaty and climate change
is for many people, and the scientists, the biggest issue in defence
of the planet, technologically, culturally and scientifically
as well, but it does not make any legal difference as far as we
are concerned.
Q3 Earl of Dundee:
I wonder if I could just ask about the recent Bali talks and the
impact that these may have on proposed EU structures for the management
of climate change, what thoughts do you have on that?
Lord Rooker: I have to say, being completely
honest and open with you, which I always am, none. I do not know
what the implications are of the climate talks for the management
of climate change as far as the EU is concerned. The fact of the
matter is there have got to be discussions. Bali agreed—I
cannot remember where the next discussions are taking place, I
think it is in Canada—to get ready in 2009 for what will
be the big negotiations for post-Kyoto. In other words, Bali set
the agenda and to that extent it was a success, but it has set
the agenda and got a commitment to get the discussions under way,
which I understand will be in 2009. That does not affect, in respect
of climate change, what we are doing with the legislation that
we are proposing to this Parliament at the present time.
Q4 Lord Plumb:
You have been fielding questions and amendments for five days
so far on climate change; how do we compare to other countries,
are we ahead of some of them, are we way behind? Would it not
be better perhaps to have more meetings at European level to compare
notes than are taking place at the moment?
Lord Rooker: I always feel, I have to say, some
kind of embarrassment when it is always claimed that we are world
leaders in every walk of life, because I cannot believe that the
rest of the planet is so far behind. The fact of the matter is,
though, in what we are legislating for in terms of the targets
in the Climate Change Bill, no one has gone that far yet. I understand
that Australia and Germany have made progress, but not so far,
so to that extent we are quite deliberately setting out to give
a lead. Part of what we have got here for sale is the science,
the intellectual property rights, different ways of doing this.
Our emissions are tiny, two per cent, so the idea that we can
make an impact is not there, but we can make an impact on those
generating a lot of greenhouse gases to use, for example, clean
coal technology and make the best use of science in terms of the
environment. We will have to lock into the European system because
part of our target which is part of the discussions we are having
at the present time is in terms of buying credits from outside
the UK. The Emissions Trading System cuts half our emissions;
that is down to individual companies and they may or may not choose
to buy on the fourth or the fifth year of a budget; therefore,
the Climate Change Committee is going to set the five-year budgets
three budgets ahead, so 15 years, and we have a trajectory, a
target as a government, but we are not in control of half the
emissions because individual companies are in the Emissions Trading
System. We have to have discussions on that and it is going to
mean a cultural change, industrial change, but we have to make
sure that it is done in such a way that it does not damage industry.
That was the Stern review and the idea is to get cracking now
and then by and large it will not affect the economy, or will
have only a minor effect on the economy; leave it for 20 years
and it will have a catastrophic effect on the economy. That was
the message basically from Stern, so what we are trying to do
is get cracking now.
Q5 Lord Plumb:
I assume you are having fairly regular discussions with equivalent
stakeholders, if you like, those who are involved or concerned
with the whole emissions issue.
Lord Rooker: Yes, in this country and at European
level. I never cease to be amazed, but from my own personal point
of view I have to say that in ten and a half years as a minister
I have only been to Brussels twice, and I am applauded for that
by certain people, the fact that I have got away with it. The
fact of the matter is that Defra is in Brussels every day, there
is no question about that, having discussions on ranges of issues
and so are ministers at the Environment Council as well. We are
not doing this in isolation and we are sharing our plans and proposals
with Member States because we want to make sure we get it right,
but nevertheless at the moment, as you rightly said, the Climate
Change Bill has only had five days here in Committee and it will
leave this House, because of various commitments that I have given
on behalf of the Government, in a slightly different shape. The
structure is still going to be the same, but certainly we have
had very good quality scrutiny and we will make several changes
to it, and those are being considered at the present time within
Government.
Chairman: Lady Sharp will ask the interesting
question on whatever it is.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Minister,
I do not know whether you can tell us why there has been this
procedural change with respect to the nationally sensitive environmental
policy issues such as town and country planning, land use and
the Member States' choice of energy supply. In what sort of circumstances
do you think the Council might vote unanimously in order to apply
the ordinary legislative procedure or co-decision and is this
more likely or less likely to be so than it was previously?
Q6 Chairman:
Well done, that is very clear.
Lord Rooker: I appreciate the broad areas of
discussion and in some ways coming here today is useful, but the
thing is that things are going to happen in the next couple of
days. For example, the EU Amendment Bill I understand will be
introduced tomorrow—I am not certain whether that means
introduced as in printed or introduced as in first reading, so
I am not certain whether it will be physically available tomorrow
or on Friday. That, of course, will give Parliament a new power
of veto over the passerelle provisions in the Lisbon Treaty. There
are changes—they are not new, these passerelles, which is
the treaty articles, a word I had not come across before I have
to say, it is a simplified procedure for amending treaty provisions,
but it is not new, that is the point. A lot was built up about
the treaty, mainly because of what had gone before on the attempt
at the constitution, and this is not a constitution as I think
has been made clear and will be made clear during the passage
of the legislation. These are not new; they were first introduced,
I understand, in the 1986 Single European Act, and the thing about
it is that Member States will retain full control over their use
because they are subject to the veto.
Q7 Baroness Sharp of Guildford:
Because it has to be unanimously decided.
Lord Rooker: That is right, because it is unanimous
you have effectively got the veto. You asked about the energy
article which falls in there. We can only speculate, first of
all, as to when they are likely to be used. The reality is in
fact that each House of this Parliament has effectively got a
veto on the use of the passarelles because there are changes in
this legislation in so far as the national parliaments are concerned
of the Member States, they will be directly contacted by the Commission
for the first time with a procedure that we can come to later,
if you wish. The energy article just reflects the importance of
energy security in the EU. The penny has dropped over recent years
that we do not want to be reliant on energy supplies from what
are fairly unstable countries as North Sea oil and indeed North
Sea gas starts to run out, or be more difficult to get out or
less economic to get out until the price rises. There are issues
related to energy security, therefore, and of course the link
that that has with climate change policy as well. We are in a
different scenario, therefore, to what we were only ten years
ago. The energy article is not new in this sense because the EU
has got an energy policy; the new article I understand removes
the need to make use of other articles to achieve the policy,
so from that point of view it is a simplification process.
Q8 Chairman:
Do you think or have you got any feeling that the procedural change,
the whole business about the passarelles, actually amounts to
anything of new significance at all?
Lord Rooker: Probably no, except that the parliaments'
role—i.e. our Parliament's role—the individual parliaments
of the Member States, will be enhanced, and I think that is a
good thing.
Q9 Chairman:
That is a very helpful comment for us. Can we move on to co-decision
in agriculture and fisheries, and this is almost the guts of it,
quite honestly, in terms of the impact of the treaty. The first
question is how content are you with the move to co-decision?
In the discussions we have had with other witnesses I will not
say there have been balanced arguments, but it is fair to say
there have been two arguments in opposite directions, as you can
imagine. One is that bringing the Parliament in is going to cause
even greater difficulty in agreeing reform because it allows for
greater defence of particular producer interests and adds to the
pressure for protectionism. That was one argument. The other argument
is that by bringing the Parliament fully into decision-making
on this rather than just voicing opinions, they will become more
responsible and the Agricultural Committee will change out of
recognition—I bloody well hope so—but also, rather
than agriculture almost paddling its own canoe—the Parliament
will view agriculture more through urban glasses in that clearly
the weight of representation in the Parliament is urban rather
than rural so it will speed up the argument for reform. Any ideas?
Lord Rooker: Your question is very general and
I will give you a general answer. We as it were see advantages
in co-decision in a way, but you are quite right that we (Defra)
have experience of co-decision in environmental matters and we
have examples of where it has been quite helpful to have the Parliament
involved. The only one I really bring you is the one that I know
most about because it occasioned one of my two visits to Brussels
in the last ten and a half years which was the chemicals directive,
REACH, which required me to go to Brussels and speak and listen
to rapporteurs and the parliamentarians. The end product of the
REACH arrangements was much better than it started off as a result
of the Parliament being involved, so from that point of view we
have a positive example of where the Parliament was involved from
the original Commission proposal. On agriculture, again, there
is that caveat about not knowing the make-up of the Parliament.
It some ways it may be urban, but I have to say—and I speak
almost as an Englander because I do not travel a great deal—I
get the feeling that even urban members of the European Parliament,
say from France, are very much with the psyche of the culture
of the farming and agriculture. There is no question about it,
the attitude of the government is different as well, and that
applies to one or two other governments as well, maybe Spain and
Portugal. So just because it may be urban I still think there
will be a really big input in the issue of agriculture and food
production. That is classed as the producer interest but in some
ways the producer interest, it could be argued in this country,
is not heard enough up the food chain; that is part of the difficulties
we have got. The Parliament, as far as I am aware, will not control
the overall budget, that is all fixed for a period, and in terms
of the health check the health check should be through and done
before this change comes in, before the election—the health
check will be later this year. In terms of reform we are then
talking post-2013 so there will be some time to bed in, but we
have got experience of working with the members of the European
Parliament and we do not foresee major difficulties. Quite clearly
there is going to be more discussion and more opportunity for
us in the UK to explain our reform agenda. We are confident enough
in the policy for a reform agenda that makes us not worried about
co-determination, and we can be quite open because of the future
of the European Union in that sense on the world stage in terms
of food and everything else we have got to change, there is no
question about that and the penny will drop slowly, hopefully
a little less slowly with Parliament involved than it would have
done otherwise. We see it as being positive in a way and I only
speak from our experience of dealing with the Parliament on environmental
matters. I could be completely wrong, but until we know the make-up
of the Parliament and the committees it is just not possible to
speculate really beyond that.
Chairman: Does anybody want to take this
further?
Q10 Lord Plumb:
Minister, you would not expect me to entirely agree with My Lord
Chairman that the role of the Agriculture Committee needs to be
changed. I know from experience of the past that the controlling
body in the Parliament was the Budget Committee rather than the
Agriculture Committee, but of course things have changed quite
dramatically since those days and the responsibilities are somewhat
different. What you have said was interesting, but when we met,
fairly recently, some of the members of the European Parliament
and asked the same question, they said that with extra power comes
responsibility and therefore we ourselves realise that when you
are in the final decision-making process you take it much more
seriously than perhaps you might otherwise, where you can feel
you have satisfied your own people without necessarily having
to go right up to the wire to make the decision. I was interested
in what you said because in that respect it may speed up the decision-making
rather than the reverse, and that is really important. One accepts
that the personnel in the Parliament will change after the election,
as it always does, but I hope they accept that in this particular
area, which is the most important move that has been made for
a long time as far as the European Parliament is concerned, they
do take it more responsibly and I think we have to keep pressing
that point.
Lord Rooker: You are right. I was reminded yesterday,
by officials far more experienced than me who know more about
the Parliament, there was a time when the Parliament used the
nuclear option over the make-up of the Commission and that was
really serious, that was big politics, but using the option it
sort of dawns on you, hang on a minute, we have got a lot of power
here, we had better make sure we use this properly. From that
point of view it does pass over if you engage people in sharing
responsibility because they want to do what they can to get decisions
right, because they will feel a degree of ownership and accountability
for the decision. It is part of the process of why we are positive
about the role of the Parliament; first of all we have experienced
it in other areas, so it is not as though we come to this completely
new as a department, we have experienced it in other areas, found
it to be positive and they have got some procedures for working.
Also, of course, once the penny drops within the Member States
and with the stakeholders in Member States, who have not really
bothered as much as maybe they should have done with members of
the European Parliament on their home turf—because they
thought they have no role in agriculture so we do not really need
to bother, it is the Commission we need to go for—we have
to get them much more involved and up to speed. I am not criticising
MEPs in any way for not being involved in this, but if you have
not had that responsibility, therefore it is inevitable that you
concentrate on the things you are responsible for. There may be
the oddball, if I can put it that way, who comes to be an MEP
with massive agricultural interests, like yourself from the past,
and then you see that you have not actually got a role where you
can use your experience in some way. You can do it in terms of
speaking, but in terms of actual decision-making you are out of
play so there is a role back in this country for the stakeholders
and the MEPs to be more up front and up to speed on the issues
relating to agricultural food production than there ever was before,
and I see that is a positive thing, not negative.
Q11 Lord Plumb:
There is a feeling that this may well take away the powers and
responsibilities of national parliaments.
Lord Rooker: But we have not got them now, have
we, in that sense?
Q12 Lord Plumb:
That is what I hoped you would say.
Lord Rooker: In that case I will shut up.
Q13 Viscount Ullswater:
If I may join in at this point, we act as a scrutiny committee,
with very limited powers, powers to make comments and make speeches
occasionally, but will that role of scrutiny now be taken over
by the European Parliament because they will actually be able
to affect the end decision whereas we do not, we cannot? At the
end of a process, say for the Water Directive, it is made up a
lot of science and we are presented really with a fait accompli
which is agreed by the Government; we can make comments about
it but we cannot really alter any of the factors of it when it
is brought in, even under secondary legislation or even primary
legislation for that matter.
Lord Rooker: That is true, but I have to say
that we are all in the same boat on this together and this is
where, by involving the elected European Parliament in an area
where we have not any competence—whether this House was
elected or not because it applies equally to the other place—there
is actually a democratic input that has been put into this policy
in a way for the first time. That has got to be a good thing.
Q14 Viscount Ullswater:
Where do you think that input will be, at the end of the process?
I do not know what your experience was with the Chemical Directive,
was it at the very end of the process that the Parliament took
an interest in what had been decided by experts and officials
up until that moment, or did they get involved at an earlier stage
in order to formulate the policy?
Lord Rooker: With respect I cannot answer that
because I only came into the REACH Directive when I came to Defra
back in May 2006 and it had already been around for a considerable
period of time, so I do not know. It had been batted back and
forwards, to be honest, between the Commission and the Parliament
and there was a fairly long delay, but there are of course these
procedures for settling disputes between the Parliament and the
Commission and that is a good thing. I do not know, it will depend
on the issue in some ways I suppose whether the Parliament wants
to get stuck in on an issue in the early days, but that is not
to say there is not a role for national parliaments, as I say,
because the Lisbon Treaty and the legislation that is going to
come is actually going to enhance the role of this House and the
House of Commons in European legislative matters—the orange
card, the yellow card—and the scrutiny arrangements for
EU legislation are probably likely to change. I think they are
going to change dramatically in the other place, by the way, because
the present position has lasted for quite a while and I did experience
it as a MAFF minister in 1997 to 1999. It is a rather strange
procedure and there are going to be major changes there, so I
think this could be reviewed between both Houses but the idea
that we will not have a role, I do not think that bears any weight,
we will have a role, there is no question about it.
Q15 Chairman:
When we took evidence from Professor Helen Wallace on co-decision
it was interesting, she was almost saying what you are saying.
She said she believed that co-decision would increase the openness
of decisions and that in the past ministers of agriculture "have
been able to operate as a collusive club with rather little external
scrutiny and in a way which was not easy for national parliaments
to get any handles on either." I suppose that is about right,
is it not?
Lord Rooker: I suppose that given the fact I
have now worked under four Ministers of Agriculture who have been
responsible, as it were, for going to the Agricultural Council—Jack
Cunningham, Nick Brown, David Miliband and now Hilary Benn—what
the professor has said is probably true. I have not quite thought
about it in that way before, but thinking about odd comments that
they have made to me after they have been to Council, it is a
little closed shop, so to that extent she is probably right. Therefore,
there would be a bigger spotlight put on the activities side,
it is only natural. Take the health check, if the timetable was
different you could imagine that the Parliament's role in what
was on the agenda for the health check would be much more vigorous
I would imagine.
Q16 Viscount Brookeborough:
Minister, what you are saying on the one hand is that with stakeholders
getting a say through their MEP this is really connectivity that
everybody has been striving for for years, but then you are also
saying that the Lisbon Treaty is avoiding the national parliaments
being bypassed so you are getting the best of both worlds.
Lord Rooker: Yes, it would appear. I suppose
in the history of things in terms of the EU we are still in early
days if you think about it, in the grand scale of history, we
are trying to put together a democratic structure for a good number
of countries and constantly moving, we are now up to 27. To modify
our procedures and processes, from the early days when we sent
members of the Commons and members of the Lords over there as
delegates unelected, things have changed dramatically and so we
have always got to look at better ways of doing it. The real big
prize will be when the people in this country start to take the
European Parliament elections as seriously as they take the elections
to the House of Commons, because at the moment they do not.
Viscount Brookeborough: That is a long
way off.
Lord Cameron of Dillington: Under the
current system, no chance.
Q17 Chairman:
Just to change tack for a moment, we have concentrated on co-decision
but really if we look at agriculture and fisheries the power to
adopt measures on fixing prices, levies and quantitative limitations,
and on the allocation of fishing opportunities, that still remains
solely with the Council. I assume the argument for that is really
a timing one.
Lord Rooker: It is.
Q18 Chairman:
Decisions have to be made and you cannot go through this sort
of process—it could take a fair bit of time.
Lord Rooker: It could. It is purely timing I
understand. I mean, once they have made these decisions on the
total allowable catches, this is done within hours and days. With
respect, one of the points you may have raised in taking proofs
of evidence is the fact that co-decision may slow the process
of decision-making down. We do not necessarily see it like that,
but nevertheless it can be weeks and months. We do not want it
to be years, but it is not days and in terms of the fishing I
think people understand the nature of the beast there, it is purely
that we need to take the decision and get those decisions implemented
very, very quickly once they are made, within days or two or three
weeks. That would not fit in with the timetable of the Parliament
and the committees and the others and I think people understand
that; it is purely a practical issue really.
Q19 Viscount Brookeborough:
There are those people who feel that the Common Fisheries Policy
has not been terribly effective, or if it has been effective it
has not achieved the results that we would all have hoped that
it would, and it has become very emotional now with discounts
and so on. Do you actually see that the Lisbon Treaty is going
to make it more effective and come through as to what most people
think is a more successful policy when fishermen and scientists
seem to be so far apart? Recently we have been told by the fishermen
that there is an increase—even scientists agree—in
the cod stocks, but of course they are all juveniles; the fishermen
want to fish more of them and straightaway we get a concession
on it or whatever. Is the Lisbon Treaty going to satisfy this?
Lord Rooker: There is a real problem on fishing
and there is a dispute, there is no doubt about it, between the
scientists and the fishermen, and I had this when I was for a
year a Northern Ireland minister. Fishing is important to those
communities on that coast there, the three particular communities,
but the fact of the matter is that major disputes about the amount
of fish stocks and the landings, and what looks to the public
as crazy—it is crazy—catching fish and having to throw
them back because they are the wrong fish, it does not make sense.
I do not think this is going to make a great deal of difference
to marine policy. I have taken advice on that, but I do not think
it will make any difference to the existing position on the regional
fisheries management, Lisbon is not going to affect that.
|
