CHAPTER 4: THE LEGACY OF THE REVIEW
"The review will be a valuable exercise
for deepening understanding in Britain of the nature of our relationship
with the European Union and how it has evolved over time, and
will provide a constructive and serious British contribution to
the public debate across Europe about how the EU can be reformed,
modernised and improved."[46]
48. So said the Rt Hon William Hague MP, Foreign
Secretary, in July 2012 on the floor of the House of Commons.
The investment in the Review can only be justified if it does
indeed deliver the benefits Mr Hague described. The Review needs
to inform policy and public debate, and it needs to be discussed
with other Member States.
An overall assessment
49. The Command Paper in July 2012 repeatedly
stated that "a final decision will be taken closer to the
time on how best to draw together the analysis produced during
the review".[47]
The natural meaning of this statement is that an attempt would
definitely be made to draw together the major themes of the 32
reports, but that the precise form this would take was still to
be decided.
50. The Minister for Europe, looking back on
the Review, said that "we took the view at the end of the
day that the 32 reports all stood on their own merits."[48]
This was a reversal of the position taken in 2012, and we remain
unclear as to when the decision not to draw the analysis together
was taken, and why it was not properly communicated to Parliament.
51. This change of tack caused concern among
our witnesses. Professor Dougan said that the "most important
issue that we [the Liverpool European Law Unit] have identified
as a gap in the coverage is an overall assessment."[49]
He added "that it is very difficult to make the Review comprehensible
to the broader public and politically engaged actors" without
such an assessment.[50]
At the same time, Professor Dougan acknowledged the risk that
such an assessment could be used by policymakers "to prejudge
their own preferences and policy conclusions."[51]
52. On the other hand, Dr Horsley warned that
"it is often not easy to simplify [the reports] and distil
them into a presentable package."[52]
The Minister for Europe made a similar point: "The risk in
trying to distil all this into a single concluding summary volume
is that you would inevitably have to leave out important aspects
of what came up in evidence in particular reports, and that would
have added to the risk of particular points in that summary volume
being taken out of context."[53]
The Minister stated that "every report has an executive summary,
and those summaries provide a more readable account than ploughing
through the whole report. So those are available to people."[54]
53. We acknowledge that the executive summaries
are accessible accounts of the content of each report—but
the Government's belief that 32 entirely separate, subject-specific
summaries, can provide the necessary overview is wishful thinking
at best. There is no reason why these executive summaries could
not, at the very least, be drawn together to form the basis of
an overall assessment. This could help to kick-start a genuinely
informed debate on the UK's relationship with the European Union.
In contrast, the Government's failure to provide an overall assessment,
a failure compounded by the lack of any expenditure on publicising
the reports, gives the appearance of burying the Review's excellent
output.
54. We are disappointed by the Government's failure
to take effective steps to publicise either individual reports
or the Review as a whole.
55. We are also disappointed by the Government's
decision to go back on its earlier commitment to draw together
the analysis contained in the 32 reports. The value of the Review
in informing public or political debate is undermined by the lack
of an overarching assessment.
Informing the debate
56. The Command Paper stated that the Review
would both inform policy and the public debate surrounding the
UK's place in Europe.[55]
Since then, events have of course moved on. The Prime Minister's
speeches in Bloomberg in January 2013, and in Staffordshire in
November 2014,[56] changed
the tone of current Government policy towards the EU before the
Review was able to publish all of its reports. We are under no
illusions that the political climate has made it difficult or
impossible for the Government to wait until completion of the
Review before making its views clear on Europe. However, it is
now time, both for this Government and its successor, to take
full account of the Review in making policy decisions.
57. Ministers have repeatedly informed us, and
both Houses of Parliament, that the purpose of the Review is to
ground the public debate on the EU on a strong evidence base.
This seems an unrealistic aim, as long as the public are unaware
of the Review's existence. We have already noted the Minster for
Europe's comments on publicity: but the groups he mentions as
being targeted via social media ("Commissioners, senior Commission
officials, Ministers and officials in other Governments, and business
organisations in other European countries") are both well-informed
already, and are not based in the UK.[57]
What is missing is any attempt to inform the debate taking place
in the UK media, which could involve the general public and those
who are not policy professionals. The Minister expressed "hope
that some of it eventually percolates through a better understanding
of what some of the balances and tensions in the European debate
are about".[58]
This seems to be another example of wishful thinking, particularly
if the Government makes no concerted effort to make the Review
more readily accessible.
58. The Bar Council concluded that "the
key findings of the review should be widely disseminated in the
coming months, presented in an accessible and user-friendly manner,
and making full use of multimedia resources."[59]
We agree. A concerted effort needs to take place to engage with
UK and European media in order to inform the public as well as
policymakers about the Review.
59. We acknowledge the Minister for Europe's
observation that "no one is making too many plans until we
know the outcome of the election".[60]
At the same time, we strongly agree with his suggestion that "whoever
is the next Government will have this source available and will
certainly want to make plans as to how we develop both our thinking
and our communications on the basis of what is there".[61]
International interest
60. The Review has implications for all other
Member States. No exercise as comprehensive as this has been conducted
by any other Member State—the closest comparable exercise
was the Dutch Government's 'Subsidiarity Review', published in
July 2013.[62] This review
considered the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality,
and was, as Professor Dougan said, "a much more limited exercise"
than the Review of the Balance of Competences.[63]
In the context of reform in the European Union, Professor Dougan
concluded that the Review meant that "if the UK wants to,
it has the opportunity to show real intellectual leadership in
these debates".[64]
The General Bar Council of England and Wales agreed "that
the data collected is widely seen as valuable, and that it is
being relied on in discussions in Brussels and beyond".[65]
61. Dr Currie drew our attention to work in Germany,
and at the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels, which
has just published a book on the Review.[66]
The Minister for Europe stated:
"The United Kingdom's paper on the digital
single market, which we released in January this year—and
which, without boasting too much, has had a very good reception
in Brussels and in national capitals—drew very heavily on
the basis of evidence from the review, particularly when it came
to an assessment of the impact on consumers of greater integration
of the digital sector at EU level."[67]
This is a welcome sign that the Government is seeking
to promote the work and knowledge embodied in the Review. This
could be applied to all relevant dossiers under consideration
in Brussels, for as long as the Review remains salient.
62. We were informed that "many of the issues
that have been flagged up in the individual reports are of interest
to every member state."[68]
Professor Dougan warned us that "if the UK decides that this
Review does not actually have much value and will be left on the
shelf … that could do some damage to the UK's credibility".[69]
The Minister for Europe said that "the French have told us
that they are using the transport report as a point of reference
in their own transport policymaking".[70]
We welcome the interest shown by other Member States and encourage
the Government to continue to engage all Member States in discussion
of the content of the reports. We also agree with Professor Dougan
that if the Review is not used to inform public policy and discussions
with other Member States, the UK's reputation will be damaged.
The Commission could make explicit use of the work, particularly
in line with its current REFIT agenda. The Government should continue
to share the reports with other Member States and encourage them
to take advantage of the work completed under the Review.
63. Although the reports represent a significant
and worthwhile body of work, the Review as a whole is diminished
by the Government's failure to deliver its undertaking in 2012
to draw together the analysis contained in the Review.
64. As a result, this major project, despite
the good quality of its outputs, has yet to deliver an outcome,
in the form of measurable benefits. It has so far made no impact
on the public debate on the UK-EU relationship.
65. We therefore recommend that the incoming
Government produce an overall analysis of the results of the Review
at the earliest opportunity.
66. We also recommend that, in future correspondence
with parliamentary scrutiny committees, and in explanatory memoranda
on EU documents, ministers should include references to the relevant
sections of the Review.
67. Finally, we urge the Commission to make explicit
use of the work, particularly in line with its current REFIT agenda.
We also urge the Government to continue to share the reports with
other Member States and encourage those Member States to take
advantage of the work completed under the Review.
46 HC Deb, 12 July 2012, col 468 Back
47
Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom
and the European Union (July 2012) Back
48
Q11 Back
49
Q4 Back
50
Q4 Back
51
Q4 Back
52
Q8 Back
53
Q11 Back
54
Q12 Back
55
Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom
and the European Union (July 2012) Back
56
The Rt Hon David Cameron MP, EU speech at Bloomberg, 23 January
2013: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg [11
March 2015] and JCB Speech Staffordshire, 28 November 2014: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/jcb-staffordshire-prime-ministers-speech
[11 March 2015] Back
57
Q14 Back
58
Q18 Back
59
Written evidence from the General Bar Council of England and
Wales (RBC0003) Back
60
Q18 Back
61
Q18' Back
62
Government of the Netherlands, 'Testing European legislation
for subsidiarity and proportionality: Dutch list of points for
action' (June 2013): http://www.government.nl/documents-and-publications/notes/2013/06/21/testing-european-legislation-for-subsidiarity-and-proportionality-dutch-list-of-points-for-action.html
[accessed 11 March 2015] Back
63
Q9 Back
64
Q9 Back
65
Written evidence from the General Bar Council of England and
Wales (RBC0003) Back
66
Q8 Back
67
Q13 Back
68
Q8 Back
69
Q8 Back
70
Q15 Back
| 
