|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I have listened with great care to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I feel that there is a dislocation of perception between him and his advisers and those to whom I speak. I repeat that those to whom I speak are not solicitors; they are the public who use the services of solicitors. If there is any sleight of hand, I think that it could be applied also--I say this with the greatest of respect--to the constant reiteration of the phrase "guaranteed work for solicitors". It is like saying "there is guaranteed work for the corner shop" because people go in and buy their cornflakes. No solicitor has a guarantee of anything unless a member of the public wishes to use his or her services.
I have not heard one single argument, whether from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or from those on his Benches, which makes me believe that by cutting out from legal aid work as a matter of policy, possibly more than half of the firms currently doing it can conceivably increase access to justice, when all those firms I have been talking about will have complied with the necessary standards tests.
So two hours we may have spent on this amendment but, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, this goes to the heart of his Bill. He feels very strongly and sincerely about it and, I am afraid, so do I. In the past we have discussed this matter somewhat late at night before a rather thin House and at this moment I feel it would not be inappropriate if the House had the opportunity now to show its views on this specific issue. Therefore I seek the opinion of the House.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"The Committee of Independent Experts set up last January on a Motion from the Socialist Group of the European Parliament to investigate allegations of fraud and mismanagement, reported yesterday. It is a damning report. It catalogues in key areas a culture of complacency and lack of accountability, and in some cases nepotism, that is unacceptable. The report could not be more clear-cut. It has revealed systemic failings in the Commission which have been tolerated for far too long.
"It was absolutely right that the Commission resigned en masse. The President of the Commission should leave as soon as reasonably and practically possible and a new president should take his place. The Commission should stay only in a caretaker role until a new Commission is appointed.
"Jacques Santer is by no means solely responsible for this situation. Indeed, to be fair to him, he has instituted many changes of a worthwhile nature. Many of the issues revealed by the report pre-date his appointment.
"But, I will be blunt. We cannot have the next president decided in the same way as the last, debating the narrow interests of one country or another. The top jobs, not just in the Commission, but throughout the European institutions, should go to the top people. Merit and merit alone should decide.
"I would like heads of government, in the manner we proposed last year at the conclusion of our presidency, to give the new Commission, with due involvement by the European Parliament, a specific statement of what we believe the aims and mission of the new Commission should be--a new contract between the Commission and the Council.
"It should set a new, clear course for a Europe of reform and change. The changes suggested yesterday by the committee of inquiry are just the first step. In the short term, the reform must include at least the following:
"A complete overhaul of the approval and auditing procedure for financial control; a new system for financial management and spending programmes; an entirely new procedure for the awarding of contracts for the provision of services, with a new management system to oversee it; reworking of the whole of the disciplinary procedure so that staff of the Commission know exactly what is expected of them and what will happen if they fall short of those expectations; and a new system of accountability in the bureaucracy of the Commission so that each individual holding a position of responsibility is fully accountable for the budget and the measures that he or she manages.
"In addition, we also need an entirely new framework for fighting fraud and financial irregularities. We have long been advocates of the appointment of an independent fraud investigation office which has full access to documents and officials and the powers it needs. That appointment should now be made.
"In the longer term, we should put in place, as we argued for at Amsterdam, during our presidency and ever since, a new structure for the Commission; a better process of decision-making; and a system of accountability that recognises the importance of connecting the people of Europe more closely to the decisions that affect them.
"The inquiry's report has revealed a sad catalogue of negligence and mismanagement. There will, no doubt, be those who see this as just another chance to bash Europe. Intelligently seen, this is in fact an opportunity to make changes, which many of us believe and have argued are long overdue. It is our responsibility now to use this crisis to ensure that the standards of management and public administration in the European institutions are as high as we expect them to be in national and, indeed, in regional governments in Europe. Let us seize that opportunity and use it well".
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement that has been made in another place. In reading the Statement, the noble Baroness made a number of points which I should like to deal with in turn. However, does she agree that this House will view this Statement and the events surrounding it with immense gravity? When so many programmes and projects handled by the Commission now seem to be riddled with incompetence and waste, does she also agree that this is no time to be pushing forward policies which will lead to our nation being run more and more by Europe?
Can the noble Baroness tell the House how seriously the Government now assess the level of fraud in the Commission and the European Union to be? In other words, what is the current estimated cost to the British taxpayer? Will the noble Baroness also acknowledge today that the findings of the auditors completely vindicate the repeated warnings of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about the prevalence of fraud in the Commission? Is it not sad how often his wise words have fallen on deaf ears on the Front Bench opposite?
Never again must this national Parliament be left in the dark about any step which will lead to the commitment of more resources to Europe. Does the noble Baroness recall that, after the Noordwijk Summit last autumn, my noble friend Lord Cranborne sought a Statement on the summit outcomes, which included agreement to major increases in EU infrastructure spending? Unfortunately, a Statement was not made to the House at the time because of the reluctance of the Prime Minister to report to Parliament. Does the noble Baroness agree that all discussions among the 15 heads of government about the Commission or the funds under its control should in future be reported to the House, whether those summits are formal or informal?
Will the noble Baroness assure the House that the Government will agree to no increase in the funding of programmes controlled by the Commission until our national Parliament can be assured that the stables are swept well and truly clean? Will she give urgent consideration to an emergency debate in this House on the implications of this crisis? While on this subject, is the noble Baroness yet in a position to say when this House will have the debate on the National Changeover Plan for the euro that she promised on 23rd February? Surely one or other of these debates should take place before the Easter Recess.
Does the noble Baroness accept that there is nothing new in the central core of these allegations? Action should have been taken long before to bring the Commission to heel. While I welcome the aspirations of the Prime Minister, your Lordships will recall the events in January this year when a Motion to censure the Commission on precisely these charges was voted down in the European Parliament on the votes of the Socialist Group, led by a Labour Member of the European Parliament. That Motion was originally tabled by the Socialist Group, but it then changed its position and did not censure the Commission. Will the noble Baroness inform the House who was responsible for the reprieve given to the Commission in January? What were the contacts between Ms. Pauline Green and the offices of the Prime Minister, or other Ministers, about the vote in January?
Regrettably, also in January, when the Conservatives and the 150 other MEPs in the European Parliament voted for the resignation of Madame Cresson, the Socialist Group supported her continuance in office. Will the noble Baroness confirm that it is now the Government's view that Madame Cresson should not be reappointed? Last night, the Prime Minister's spokesman was able to re-endorse Sir Leon Brittan and Mr. Kinnock immediately. Should we now take it that they have no confidence in any of the other Commissioners?
The most essential step now is that confidence in EU institutions and in the handling of such large sums of money should be restored. When will the Government be more specific about their precise proposals? Does the noble Baroness agree that the Commission now needs to become far more open and accountable and that clear lines of responsibility should be established? Further, does she agree that there should be a new code of conduct on the appointment of senior EU officials; that Commissioners should declare their private interests and connections on a public register; and that the number of European directorates and departments should be reduced? Will the Prime Minister ensure that these items, and others, are on the agenda for the Heads of Government meeting next week?
The Prime Minister has spoken of his desire to be seen as positive in Europe. Good. That is all very well. Indeed, we all want Europe to succeed. However, we need to start digging beneath the fine words and flabby generalities and ask: where is this Government's policy specifically leading us? They have signed up to the social chapter that is loading costs on our business and
In his desire to cosy up to the European Union, has the Prime Minister not been more than a little naive in moving so far, so fast to turn more authority over to Brussels? Does this crisis not demonstrate that the existing institutions of the EU should not be trusted with more responsibility? Dare I say that our national interest would have been a lot better served if the noble Baroness and her friends in government had spent a little less time on the so-called reform of your Lordships' House, which is working well, and on upheavals in our system of justice, which is generally admirable? Would we not have been better served if they had devoted a little more of their time to reform of EU bodies whose role they have enhanced so unthinkingly and whose virtues they have accepted so uncritically? Is it not time for less rhetoric and more realism in this Government's policy on Europe?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, speaking from these Benches I have no need to ask the kind of debating questions which the condition of the Conservative Party obliged the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to raise. I noted that the Minister on this occasion spoke for four minutes and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke for seven. I intend to be much closer to the Minister than to the noble Lord in two respects.
On these Benches we welcome the repetition of the Statement made promptly in another place. It is difficult to take exception to what the Prime Minister said. The Statement is admirably short and to the point. We on these Benches will watch to make sure that the Government continue to put their full weight behind the Statement and the reforms which the Prime Minister says he has in mind and that this is indeed the spirit which will inspire the discussions with other heads of government which are now bound to take place.
There is a case for a short pause now to assess exactly what is happening in Brussels. Last night the Commission seemed to have resigned and that was wholly appropriate. One assumed it had resigned because it believed that what the report said required resignation. However, the President of the Commission has apparently said today that the report is false, unbalanced and unfair, which makes the Commission's decision difficult to understand. These matters have to be sorted out.
I hope that my next comments will chime with the feelings of your Lordships on all Benches. Whether one is in favour of the European Union and its development, or whether on the whole one is hostile to its future prospects, we must all wish to see this crisis resolved. Only those who wish to withdraw from the European Union can hope that positive results do not come out of what has happened.
The outcome is to the credit of the European Parliament. We should note that. The prospect is that it will lead to greater accountability on the part of the Commission, and we must welcome that. It may also result in far better day-to-day management which is something noble Lords on all sides of the House have pursued. The Prime Minister referred to root and branch reform of institutions. I am sure that he is right to take that view.
I ask the noble Baroness the following short questions. What happens now? Who makes the next moves? It is far from clear, either in what the Prime Minister said or from what is coming out of Brussels, what happens now. Is it likely that Sir Leon Brittan may become the acting President of the Commission? We on these Benches would look favourably on that. He has served this country and the European Union well. My next question follows from my first question. Institutionally, what are the rules within the Commission and within the Union which govern an unprecedented occasion of this kind?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have broadly welcomed the position that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has taken in his swift response to the crisis in Brussels, rightly described by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as grave. I am sure the tone of the Statement reflects the gravity with which the Government view the activities of the Commission and the situation that has occurred in Brussels over the past 24 hours.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rightly drew attention to the role of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington in raising some of these issues, as he has, of course, done over many years. The House should not take the view that somehow all of this has happened recently. In fact the report of the wise men covers a period of four-and-a-half years, long before my right honourable friend took responsibility. I remind your Lordships of the comments of the previous Prime Minister, the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Major, when M. Santer was appointed; namely, that he was a wise choice and was the right man in the right place at the right time. There is nothing to be gained in any of us trying to ascribe responsibility on a party political basis for presiding over a period of fraud and difficulty.
It is, of course, right to take this matter extremely seriously. I emphasise that again to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and to everyone in the House. It is the Government's intention to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked about the next steps. It is fortunate that the summit will take place in
There was a question about whether or not our commissioners would stay in post. Of course the UK Government are responsible for nominating their own commissioners. As the Statement says, the Government have confidence in our own commissioners although we are aware that they take collective responsibility. It was their collective responsibility which led them to resign with their colleagues in Brussels. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to Madame Cresson. That is, of course, a matter initially for the French Government, but I believe the British Government would be surprised if she were reappointed. However, that would, of course, be a matter for the heads of state meeting next week.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether there was any estimate of the size of the fraud by commissioners. I emphasise to the House that there was no suggestion in the report of the wise men that commissioners had been responsible for fraud. They had certainly been responsible for mismanagement; indeed, the word "nepotism" was used. The level of possible financial fraud among the officials of the Commission and within the organisation is a matter which I imagine will be looked at closely in the further investigations of the group of wise men, who, as I said in repeating the Statement, will take their investigations further.
Both noble Lords asked whether there would be some suspension in the immediate term of the agenda on Europe. As noble Lords will be aware, the Commission's report on Agenda 2000 which is to be considered at the Berlin summit next week, is of enormous importance, and is one which I am sure no one in your Lordships' House would want to see derailed. But, of course, these initial problems with the Commission will have to be addressed and will obviously be matters of great importance in those discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether the Government would be looking to a more open and accountable Commission. The answer to that must surely be yes. Indeed, that was reflected in the terms of the Statement and in the provisions for reform which my right honourable friend described as being essential. Of course it is important that the Commission should be both open and accountable. It should have more rigorous systems of management and accountability throughout its structures, not simply among its senior people and senior management.
As always when we discuss these matters in your Lordships' House there is perhaps a basic division of opinion about whether the European institutions are, in principle, worthwhile. I would simply say that the Government's view is that it is in the best interests of this country to stay in Europe, to stay with the European Commission, but to work as vigorously and as importantly as we can to ensure that we lead a reformed Union. After today, I think that will find an echo throughout Europe.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will accept that she should add quite a large number of items to the short list of defects which the Commission has to remedy. A root and branch reform is needed. What worries me-- I am sure it worries my noble friend from her responses already--is that there is no one to ensure that major reforms and changes take place. What also worries me is that for four years the Commission's own Court of Auditors has failed to certify the accounts and the European Parliament has sat on its hands. Are we really to rely upon its new endeavours or simply wait for another whistle-blower like the brave young man who exposed what has been going on? Can we not find some ways of returning and repatriating powers already handed over to the Commission to our own Parliament where they can be properly supervised?
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page