Unrevised transcript of evidence taken before The Select Committee on the European Union

Inquiry on

THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Evidence Session No. 11 Heard in Public Questions 142 - 146

THURSDAY 9 JANUARY 2014 10 am

Witnesses: , André Gattolin, , Éric Bocquet, , Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam and Collette Mélot

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1. This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and webcast on www.parliamentlive.tv.

2. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither Members nor witnesses have had the opportunity to correct the record. If in doubt as to the propriety of using the transcript, please contact the Clerk of the Committee.

3. Members and witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Clerk of the Committee within 7 days of receipt.

1

Members present

Lord Boswell of Aynho (Chairman) Lord Bowness Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Lord Harrison Lord Maclennan of Rogart Lord Wilson of Tillyorn ______

Examination of Witnesses

Simon Sutour, President of the European Affairs Committee, André Gattolin, Richard

Yung, Éric Bocquet, Catherine Tasca, Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam and Collette Mélot,

Members of the European Affairs Committee, French

Q142 The Chairman: Monsieur le Président et Sénateurs, je tiens compte toujours des mots de Churchill: “Prenez garde, je vais parler français”. If I am allowed, I would prefer to speak in English, but it is to express our great thanks to you for the honour of this reception and for the opportunity of discussing these matters, which are, I think, of common interest.

Perhaps I may make two points before I introduce my team. First, we are already very grateful for the engagement of the Senate. You have already sent us a very helpful written note with your comments, which I have read again this morning. It is an extremely useful piece of work. It is not even, dare I say, too long; it is something that I can work with. My other comment relates to activity taking place in this building as we speak. You are debating the possibility of a transatlantic free trade area, which is very interesting. One of the Sub-

Committees of my Committee is carrying out an inquiry into that subject, but this is the first time that the two planets of interest in this have come into conjunction. We ought to do more of this, I think. If we do not understand the positions and the problems, it is more difficult to get our national Governments into the right frameworks to make their representations to the Commission and others and to get the outcome that we want. 2

I shall say a brief word about our inquiry. We established it last summer. We have been taking evidence from experts, political practitioners and others both in Britain and in other countries of the European Union. We saw the European Parliament yesterday. We will shortly begin to prepare our report and will produce that before the European Parliament elections later this spring, in March or April. We have no prescription and we shall offer no precise prescription. We want to offer some analysis and some menu of possibilities for future co-operation, both at the formal level—in the question of yellow cards and the question of the work of COSAC—and in the possibilities for better informal exchanges in developing thinking together, particularly at an early stage in the development of European policy.

If I may, I will present the members of our group and we will ask you a few questions that might help to influence our thinking for the inquiry. I begin—and there is no particular political configuration here—with, on my far right, Lord Bowness, who is a Conservative.

Next is Lord Wilson, who is a former very distinguished diplomatic official. Then we have

Lord Maclennan, who is a Liberal Democrat. Like Lord Wilson, I do not have a political affiliation now. Lord Bowness and Lord Maclennan are from the governing coalition and Lord

Foulkes and Lord Harrison are from the .

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The next Government.

The Chairman: All I would say, not least as a former Member of the lower House, is that we have a different perspective—I think that you also have this in your Senate—because there is no guaranteed majority on any one issue. The Government lost yesterday by—

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: 137.

The Chairman: It was a complete defeat on a particular issue in the upper House. It was something to do with anti-social behaviour, was it not? But I think that the spirit of co- operation and accommodation that influences the House of Lords influences our report. It 3 also influences our attitudes towards the European Union. I think that I can say that my colleagues may have packed their suitcases to return to London tonight, but they have not packed their suitcases to leave the European Union.

Perhaps we may then, Mr President, ask some questions. It is your answers that are really of interest. I will ask the first. It has been said that there is a democratic deficit and a lack of democratic legitimacy in Europe. You would not have to be a specialist to know that there is a degree of distress among our peoples and our citizens about current events. This has been a very tough time for all our countries. We are interested in your view as to whether an increasing role for national parliaments within the European Union would assist the operation of the Union. As you consider that, may I put the dilemma? Some people might say that if we were to have a bigger role, that would further delay the process of making necessary decisions. On the other hand, if we could get—to use an American phrase—buy- in, where there was the involvement of the national parliaments, would the business of making difficult decisions be more legitimate and perhaps easier? That is the dilemma.

Simon Sutour: (Interpretation) Thank you for that first question. We have been joined by our colleague Mme Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam. She is a Senator representing French people living abroad and is a member of the UMP group. She has quite a lot of dealings in London this group. Who would like to speak on the role of national Parliaments?

Catherine Tasca: (Interpretation) I would like to answer that. There is obvious distress and concern among citizens of all European countries, but there is also a lack of confidence in the European Union, especially in the way in which representatives are elected. These concerns of the citizens are part of kind of anti-parliamentary movement that exists in

Europe. This has a big impact on institutions. There is a big difference between the European opinions and those at national level. We have to try to address the situation, I feel. There are two possible perspectives. I would say that the second one that you presented— 4 increasing and strengthening the role of national parliaments—would be the best one to choose. Interparliamentary co-operation would also be a good idea. It would help us to improve the legislative process. This needs to be done, since the differences between national opinions and the decisions taken at the European level are widening.

Simon Sutour: (Interpretation) My colleague will add to that.

Richard Yung: (Interpretation) It is clear that as we move towards more and more integration, more and more important decisions will be taken at European level. We have a problem co-ordinating the legitimacy of the European Parliament and the national parliament—there is a wide gap between the two. I have two examples. The first is the budget process, relating to the stability pact and so on, in which the UK participates. It is clear that the European Commission and European Council will have more and more clout in the future in terms of decisions that are made concerning national budgets. In this kind of system, the Commission can easily reject the proposals and send them back to the specific country, saying that they do not agree with them and that they has to be revised. The main legitimate role of a parliament is to vote for the budget; that is the very role of parliament.

So we have a situation where the national parliaments will be in a very ambiguous situation.

We are trying to develop a conference concerning Article 13. This should provide certain mechanisms. The European Parliament is saying that it has a legitimate role on the European questions and that national parliaments have less of a role to play there. There are particular problems concerning the budget, and not just for the UK. There will also be many problems concerning banking union. The measures on banking union will be extremely important and we need to find a solution involving the role of national parliaments.

The Chairman: Thank you. I think we understand the dilemma more clearly now.

Richard Yung: (Interpretation) I feel that national parliaments need to work with the national parliamentary committees on European affairs and finance, in particular. We need to work 5 more on the exchange of information with the Commission before any budgetary decisions are made. There needs to be a greater flow of information between national parliaments and the Commission and more exchanges between parliaments, as this is currently lacking.

Today’s meeting is a good example of this.

Simon Sutour: (In English) I will give just one example. It has been very difficult for us here to have Mario Draghi, the President of the European Central Bank, come to speak to us. He is the boss of the whole financial system, so he, or some of his deputies, should be coming here.

Lord Harrison: He went to the Bundesbank. His deputy, Dr Constâncio, came before my

Committee, but it is not going to happen all the time. I am astonished that it has not happened here in , a major country. I think that this cuts to the quick of what we are here to understand. How can we, as national parliaments, combine in an effective way, in terms of resources and time—we are not time-rich—and in terms of consulting 28 member states, as well as those states consulting the Commission or, in some cases, the European

Central Bank? The essence of it is: how do we do it, so that we improve and make up what may be that democratic deficit?

Q143 The Chairman: Can I perhaps bounce two ideas off you? The first, which arises from these exchanges, is that we might look together or collectively at means of ensuring that we get better information from the Commission and otherwise. Some of that will come through the National Parliament Office and attachés from your diplomatic representation in

Brussels, as does ours, but we need to be quite early in the process. We are shortening some of our questions to get a feel of your views.

The second point is in relation of your mention of Mr Draghi. I say as a side point that

Britain, of course, is not a member of the euro area, so we have a further circle of diversity within the European Union. It would seem to me—we may wish to discuss this and find a 6 view—that it would be unfortunate to worry about the bureaucratic control of the

European Union and then to substitute control by the judges through a legalistic procedure, the yellow card or otherwise, rather than to insert a genuine political dialogue. There is a problem. We will need, particularly in the euro area, more controls in the way you identified, but if we do that are we going to find that we can control them only by putting the matter into the European Court of Justice, or should we be trying to get some political input to say, “This is not satisfactory”?

I will, if I may, add just one other point. Looking at the written evidence that you submitted to us, you make the point that subsidiarity, which is a legal concept, becomes a political concept about whether such a position is acceptable to our citizens. Is that a line of argument that you find attractive?

Simon Sutour: (Interpretation) I would like to say something at this point. Let me continue with some more introductions. This is André Gattolin, who is a Senator at Hauts-de-Seine. It is the constituency of Mr Sarkozy. He is from the Ecology Party.

André Gattolin: I am very sorry to be late, but I was in the hemicycle to speak a few minutes ago.

Simon Sutour: (Interpretation) I would like to talk about subsidiarity to start with. That is not how we see things. To look at this issue, we have an informal group. In fact, we had a meeting this morning. There is one representative from each political group and I am in charge of that: I am the Chair. Every two weeks, we meet to examine and scrutinise all the

European texts that we see. We decide to carry out an in-depth examination or to examine these documents on the basis of the subsidiarity principle. That means from the French standpoint things can be done better at national level. If these measures were to be taken at

European level, the results would be less effective, so it would be better to do this at the national level. Perhaps my colleague, Mr Bocquet, can speak about this. 7

Éric Bocquet: (Interpretation) The idea of the European Union is a wonderful idea, but it has two major defects. This is my opinion; I am not expressing the opinion of the Senate majority. The two major defects concern economic choices made in the European Union and unfortunately the democratic deficit. This is the way I think citizens perceive the situation.

I will give three examples. The first is the latest European treaty on stability, co-ordination and governance. This was adopted by the French Parliament at the end of 2012 and has significant consequences for the life of French people. Our party regretted the fact that this treaty was not put to public debate before it was voted on. Let me go back to 2005 and refer to the European constitution, which in France generated an awful lot of debate. A vote was taken by the Deputies and Senators on the text, and it was adopted by an 87% majority.

When the text went to a referendum the citizens rejected it to the tune of 85%. This means that we cannot continue to make decisions without the input of citizens.

My second point—I do not have the exact figure in my head—is that roughly 60% of laws voted on in the French parliament are simply a transposition of laws and directives that are made at a EU level.

My third point concerns the budget process. France submits its budgetary procedure to the

Commission before it is even looked at in France. The Commission makes recommendations to various countries before the parliamentarians themselves have actually discussed it and agreed it. The parliamentarians themselves have moved further and further away from the responsibility for budgetary matters, so you can just imagine what the citizens feel in view of that. Lord Boswell used a key term, as I see it, in this context, and that is co- operation. I regret the fact that the European Union is being built on the basis of competition. Let me go back to what I said initially: the EU is a great idea but it can have dire consequences if European citizens feel that it is just being imposed on them. 8

Q144 Lord Maclennan of Rogart: I wonder, having heard these critiques, what procedures the Senate would regard as appropriate to implement the changes that are required. With 28 member states, consultation informally might take a very long time and might not end up with a consensus. Having been present as a member of the convention that the last speaker referred to, my sense is that a convention would pull together in a consensus the views of the national parliaments and possibly give us the opportunity to construct responses. I wonder whether that concept would be acceptable.

Catherine Tasca: (Interpretation) Lord Boswell initially referred to information and there are things that need to be done on that front, because we have many European institutions to deal with, with many rules and regulations, and indeed processes that are very weighty. If we want information to circulate and if we want democratic opinions to be formed on European issues, the information should not just go through the channels of the EU institutions. We need to think about creating more occasions and opportunities for informal meetings where parliamentarians can get together—perhaps not from all 28 countries but from the countries that are interested in a particular point. The EU institutions are extremely rigid and we need to find a way of getting around that rigidity.

Simon Sutour: (Interpretation) I agree with what Mme Tasca said. We need to increase our exchanges of information and the number of meetings. We can do that through COSAC, but not all the members of our committees participate in those COSAC meetings. There are, however, four COSAC meetings a year. We had the larger COSAC meeting and a smaller one as well. We should introduce more of these informal meetings. As Mme Tasca said, this would allow us to move forward on many issues, even though we might not be able to go as far as we would wish. The Swedish are always there to remind us of this.

I want to give a concrete response to the question that was asked. I think personally that the initiative proposed by the Netherlands is very good and is something that I identify with. We 9 should have the possibility to carry out the scrutiny process effectively using the yellow and the orange cards. As we have already mentioned, this is a posteriori scrutiny. We need to have the right to introduce initiatives in Europe. This concerns European legislation coming from one, two or several national parliaments. We should have this role of being allowed to present initiatives. The European institutions, of course, are new to their respective roles, but we should at least have the right to do this.

Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam: (Interpretation) As parliamentarians, especially from the UK,

France and Germany, we have a special responsibility to take the lead on this democratic deficit. It is our responsibility to give a positive image of the EU to the people. I speak from experience because, as I said, I spent a lot of time in the UK and I was the Chair of a council that represented French people living abroad. I suffered greatly from having to read these very negative articles in the press every day about the European Union. Let me give an example. When the Maastricht treaty was in the offing, let us say, the European Parliament asked me to organise a press conference. I found it very hard to get any journalists to come to it. Of course, some of them came because champagne was on offer. What they said in the press was extremely negative. We need to work on the information process and the information that we give to the public, otherwise we will get very negative reactions from the citizens. The only thing they really discern is the negative articles in the press. We have a particular responsibility to play here as French and UK parliamentarians. I also think that UK parliamentarians have not been sufficiently involved in the EU process. This needs to change.

Perhaps we can do this through informal meetings between UK and French parliamentarians, because obviously we cannot include everybody in those more informal meetings.

Collette Mélot: (Interpretation) We as parliamentarians are responsible for the image that we give of the European Union. When we have elections we do not talk enough about

European issues. This is something that we witnessed recently during the presidential 10 elections in France. We did not talk enough about these European issues, so we cannot ask

European citizens to give their opinion on them if they are not sufficiently informed. We need to work more on improving that.

The Chairman: President, two reflections at this point. The first is that we already have a very active and successful collaboration between parliaments in relation to defence matters.

That may be an example to reflect on—I notice that some French colleagues are nodding at this. My second point is very brief. We need to reflect, when sometimes, for example, the press take a negative view of tourism by parliamentarians, that not all these meetings have to take place physically; some of them can now be done through information technology virtually. Perhaps we should get into the habit of just e-mailing or videoconferencing each other. Some of our work for this inquiry with three national parliaments has been done by videoconference, for example.

Q145 Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The Chairman has almost stolen my thunder, because

I was going to mention that. In the past two years, I have been involved in three meetings with Members of the Senate on defence co-operation, and they have been really useful. We are also looking at the structure of our second Chamber, because our non-elected arrangement cannot continue for ever. I find very useful information from the French Senate about your indirect elections and your grands électeurs, which has been very helpful. By an amazing coincidence, while your Chamber is discussing the transatlantic treaty, in London now our Sub-Committee is also doing that in my absence.

The conclusion—I want to follow up what you and the Chairman said—is that the Dutch initiative is very interesting. Cold water was poured on it by the Members of the European

Parliament whom we met yesterday. You can understand why. I hope that our Committee will pursue it. In order to do that, you need informal meetings to get together to decide what the initiative is. We should do that because we are talking about politics and the 11

European Union is too bureaucratic. There is not enough politics in it, and not enough politicians taking the initiative. My friend on the left is a socialist like me, and he says, “How?”

That is not beyond our wit. First, our Chairman, Lord Boswell, spoke about the new technology, which I have here: I can tell you what is happening in my Committee at the moment. There is also videoconferencing—a whole range of things. There must also be opportunities for us to get together more. It is so easy for us, particularly between London and Paris, between Berlin and Paris and between Berlin and London, to get together, and we should do so more informally, and more often. I was supposed to ask questions about something else, but this is much more interesting.

Catherine Tasca: (Interpretation) I have a question. Both our parliaments have two

Chambers: they are bicameral. I would like to know how in the UK you exchange information and how your two Chambers co-operate with other on European issues.

Q146 The Chairman: I shall give you a formal answer and I shall also give you an informal answer. The formal answer is that if a matter requires United Kingdom legislation, for example a treaty change, that will be debated as part of the normal process of legislation in the British Parliament. We have machinery in place for consultation on scrutiny matters.

Our staffs work together on that technical level. We have a political dialogue with the House of Commons and the British Members of the European Parliament of all parties perhaps twice a year formally.

The informal comment is really summed up in what Lord Harrison said. There is a difference of emphasis. Without forming a final view, it would be true to say that our House is more generally sympathetic to Europe. Certainly those who comment in the lower House are less sympathetic to Europe. This sometimes makes collaboration difficult, but it does not typically damage the personal relationships, so you can still do this. There will be technical issues on which we work very closely, particularly where they relate to scrutiny and we are not 12 satisfied with the response from our Government. We might then work together to try to get this changed.

Can I ask our French colleagues how much association they have with their own Members of the European Parliament? I think there is sometimes the impression in Britain that our

Members of the European Parliament are in exile. They are in Brussels and they do not connect very well with the parliamentary system. I see some nods from our French colleagues. Is it a general view that part of this process must be to try to work more closely with the Members of the European Parliament, not necessarily in one country but maybe in more than one?

Simon Sutour: (Interpretation) I do not think so. I would like to say something in respect of the MEPs legislating within this exclusive remit over European affairs, whatever party they come from. We see this regularly. We see it at COSAC: the MEPs want to impose their will, as it were, particularly with regard to Article 13 of the treaty concerning financial stability.

Their opinion was that national parliaments have nothing to say on this and that everything in that respect should be decided at the European Parliament level. We, as parliamentarians, have the same type of meetings as you three times a year. These are meetings between select committees, the Senate and the Assembly. We work very well with the committee from the National Assembly and we invite MEPs to attend those meetings. There are about

80 of them in total, but only three or four tend to turn up.

I am afraid that we have to move on to another meeting now, but we will have informal drinks at the end if you want to continue this discussion on a more informal basis.

Richard Yung: (Interpretation) A proposal has just been made to solve the many problems that you raise, and that is to have a second Chamber at the level of the European Parliament on the model of the Bundesrat. This would involve multinational parliaments and would be a way of providing the European Parliament with checks and balances if you work in the 13 normal bicameral way that you invented 800 years ago. It is just an idea that I am throwing out.

The Chairman: Thank you. I would like to express our thanks while we are still on the record. I am very grateful.