European Committee, 04 Mar 2003
Meeting date: Tuesday, March 4, 2003
Official Report
203KB pdf
Future of Europe
Members have before them the Executive's response to the committee's report on the future of Europe. I have a couple of comments. The Executive's response is positive and generally helpful. It worth noting how many of the ideas in the Executive's joint submission to the convention are now identifiable in the drafts of the protocols on national parliaments and the proposed early warning system to monitor subsidiarity. That shows that we have achieved something. It is particularly welcome that the Scottish Parliament and other devolved assemblies in the United Kingdom will have a full part to play in monitoring subsidiarity within the overall UK system.
That matter was referred to in a meeting that several committee colleagues had with Peter Hain. I understand that Irene Oldfather has written to Jimmy Hood, the chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee in the Commons, and Lord Grenfell, the chairman of the European Union Committee in the Lords, to identify how we might work with them in the future. Do members have comments on the Executive's response?
I want to say something about the thorny issue of access to the European Court of Justice. The final sentence on page 3 of paper EU/03/4/2 refers to the declaration that was signed in Florence on 14 November 2002. It states that
"the Executive made clear when signing that it did not fully endorse the calls for the right of access to the ECJ, but was willing to support the Declaration as a whole".
That appears to be a slight change in position from when we took evidence. I asked about the matter, which will not go away.
There is great pressure within Europe for the ECJ effectively to become the final arbritrating court between legislative regions or councils and the arbiter over all subsidiarity issues. I want to know exactly what the issues are—not for the UK Government but for the Executive—that allowed the Executive to state that
"it did not fully endorse the calls for the right of access to the ECJ, but was willing to support the Declaration as a whole".
It would be useful for us and for the future committee to know exactly what the Executive does not want fully to endorse. That is not clear.
I am sure that we can enter into further discussions on the matter.
What Peter Hain said to us about the issue is mentioned in the convener's report—he made it clear what he thought was not the right way to go. In our report, I was a dissenter in respect of access to the ECJ—I think that everybody else was in favour of it. It is worth trying to find out what the Executive means by using the word "fully". One is either in favour or not in favour of such calls.
A fair point has been raised.
There has been a change of position.
The committee has set out its position.
Yes—it has done so very clearly.
That position has been passed to the Executive. The Executive's response says that it
"continues to believe, however, that breaches of the principle of subsidiarity are a political rather than a judicial matter, which can be most effectively dealt with at an early (ex-ante) stage in the legislative process."
That is the Executive's interpretation. Our interpretation is different and things will continue in that way. Lloyd Quinan has made a fair point.
Do members accept and welcome the Executive's broadly positive response to our future of Europe report?
There is clarity and the response is an improvement. It is clear, easy to understand and not too long-winded.
Indeed.