CONTENTS

Westminster Sessions 10TH-12TH November 2009

Tuesday 10th November

1) Governance, Professor John Greenaway………………………………….Pg 4 2) Models of Government in Westminster Parliamentary Systems and Governance in the UK, Professor Robert Hazell ………………………...Pg 11 3) Hot Topics for 2010, Rt Hon Hilary Armstrong MP, Mr Peter Bottomley MP, Mr Paul Keetch MP……...………………………………………….…....Pg 16 4) Strengthening Parliamentary Democracy, Mr Hugh Bayley MP, Ms Sian Dixon, Mr Greg Power………………………………………………...…Pg 22 5) The Scrutiny Role of the Media, Mr Simon Hoggart, Mr Norman Smith..Pg 28 6) Justice and Human Rights, Rt Hon Baroness Butler-Sloss GBE, Mr Alex Wiles, Lord Dubs…………………………………………………...…….Pg 31

Wednesday 11th November

1) Young People and Politics: Engaging the Next Generation, Mr Tom O’Leary, Mr James Bartle, Miss Barbara Soetan……………………………...... …Pg 35 2) Representing Diversity, Professor Baroness Young of Hornsey OBE, Mr Ashok Viswanathan……………………………………………..…………Pg38 3) Delegates Forum: Ethics and Accountability in Public Life……….……..Pg 44 4) Elections and Electoral Systems, Mr Keith Best, Mr MNark Stevens…….Pg 50 5) Freedom of Information, Mr Bob Castle, Mr Norman Baker MP……..…Pg 55

Thursday 12th November

1) The Role of the Opposition, Rt Hon Michael Howard QC……………….Pg 60 2) Scrutiny of Financial Institutions, Mr Michael Fallon MP, Mr Paul Double, Mr Paul Sizeland……………………………………………….……...….Pg 64 3) Political Parties and Engaging the Electorate, Lord Soley, Mr Andrew Rosindell MP………………………………………………………….…..Pg 70 4) Engaging with Civil Society, Mr Vijay Krishnarayan, Mr Chandu Krishnan, Ms Laura McCann……………………………………………………..…Pg 74 5) The Committee System, Ms Jacqy Sharpe, Mr Mike Gapes…………..…Pg 79 6) Working with Business and Industry, Ms Sally Muggeridge, Mr Bill Olner MP, Mr Ian Pellow…………………………………………………..……Pg 84

Brussels Sessions 16th-17th November 2009

Monday 16th November

1) Overview on UKREP’s Work on Development, Governance and Trade, Mr Martin Reynolds……………………………………………………..……Pg 87 2) UK Engagement with European Parliament, Mr Paul Heardman ...... Pg 93 3) Welcome Address to the European Commission, Mr Charis Xirouchakis ………………………………………………………………………….…Pg 98

2

4) Introduction to the Organisation and Work of the EU’s Institutions: Their roles and Functions, Mr Jo Vandercappellen…………………………………Pg 100

Tuesday 17th November

1) Welcome, Mr Jamie Andreu………………………………………...Pg 109 2) Briefing on Trade, Mr Ivano Casella……………………………….Pg 110 3) Presentation on the Impact of the Financial Crisis on Developing Countries with a Particular Focus on ACP Countries, Mr Phillipe Latriche ………………………………………………………………...……..Pg 114 4) Briefing on the European Commission’s Work on Climate Change, Ms Rosario Bento Pais………………………………….……………....Pg 117 5) Welcome and Introduction from the Vice-President of the European Parliament, Mr Libour Roueek MEP, Bill Newton-Dunn MEP, Anthony Teasdale……………………………………………………………..Pg 122 6) Briefing on the Presidency from the Swedish Permanent Representative to the EU, Mrs Zofia Tuckinska………………………………..………Pg 127 7) Briefing and Discussion with Members of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, Martin Callanan MEP, Frank Engel MEP………………………………………………………………....Pg 130 8) Briefing and Discussion with Members of the Trade and Foreign and External Relations Committees, Robert Sturdy MEP, Giles Chichester MEP, Syed Kamall MEP, Frank Engel MEP…………………….....Pg 134

3

TUESDAY 10th NOVEMBER 09

Session 1 - GOVERNANCE

Speakers: Professor John Greenaway, School of Political, Social and International Studies, University of East Anglia

Chairman: Mr Andrew Tuggey DL, Secretary, CPA UK Branch

Mr Andrew Tuggey DL welcomed delegates, emphasising that the seminar would be about the Westminster system rather than Westminster itself. Governance in Westminster had obviously faced one or two challenges recently. This had been a learning experience for everyone. He introduced Professor Greenaway, an expert on governance.

Professor Greenaway thanked Andrew Tuggey. It was a great honour to be asked to speak at the seminar even if it meant leaving sunny Norwich, where the University of East Anglia was based, for the gloom of London. He was at the seminar to give a political scientist’s view of the nature of governance. His expertise was in Western European politics but delegates would no doubt broaden the discussion in the question and answer session.

Traditional definitions of governance were clear: government was the instrument for governing; governance was the process of governing. However, in the last 20 or 30 years the term governance had come to be used in a different way. There had been major global shifts in the nature of public administration and governance in the world. These changes had considerable implications for democracy, good governance and the role of parliamentarians.

In the 1950s and 1960s the nation state was the sole focus of authority and democratic legitimacy. (Many delegates’ countries were under colonial rule in this period but aspired to self –determination and nationhood.) Political parties and parliaments were the key to politics, which was based on ideologies. Governance was done by hierarchical bureaucratic administrations, although career patterns of civil servants did vary across Western Europe. The public and private sector were two distinct institutions. Professor Greenaway remembered being asked by a career adviser whether he wanted to join the public or private sector. There were clear lines of accountability – through ministerial responsibility to parliament in the Westminster tradition and through administrative courts elsewhere.

In the 1980s and 1990s the meaning of governance changed. One factor in this change was increasing globalisation, including cultural and financial. Particularly in Western Europe, the traditional building blocks of politics – class, gender and ethnicity - were eroded and people took on much more varied and complex social identities. The media also became more diverse and less hierarchical. Before there had been a small number of state run channels. The rise of new media, in particular the internet, was also important. This could be seen in the last US Presidential election campaign where the internet had been used to mobilise the grassroots.

4

The nation state was now much less of a key decision-making body. Far more power could be found at a global level, indeed it was often said that many transnational corporations had budgets greater than those of small countries. International bodies, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, were very influential. The European Union (EU) had emerged as a major actor. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) were also of considerable importance. One of the Professor’s PHD students was doing a very interesting comparison of policy making by the EU and NAFTA on genetically modified foods.

Beneath these higher level organisations were multi-level governments. In the previous session the speaker had spoken, quite rightly, about the importance of devolved institutions. There were many layers of governance in the UK: the EU, the national government, regional and local government. Governance was now about complicated negotiated exchanges between systems of government. There were more actors involved. Legal frameworks were less important than negotiations and networks. There were also no prejudgements about the logical priority of governance within levels of government.

The barriers between the public and private sectors had become increasingly blurred. The state was now less of a sole provider, with NGOs, charities and business groups playing a very important role in healthcare and education, for example. There was an increasing interchange between the civil service and business. In the 1930s this had been unknown, indeed frowned upon, but since the 1980s it had been positively encouraged. There were now partnerships between the public and private sectors, such as Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs). It no longer made sense to ask whether individuals wanted a career in the public or private sector. The influence of the new right meant that people now talked about public management rather than public administration. There was much more of an emphasis on officials needing to be susceptible to market forces. Targets were set for the delivery of services. Many countries now had quasi markets in health and education – for example league tables for schools.

The civil service had previously been military like, but such hierarchical administrations were being supplanted by networks and exchanges. Far more policy making was done through networks based on the exchange of resources, whether it be money, expertise, democratic legitimacy or operational capacity. Policy areas were now far more interconnected. Rather than having one department responsible for a particular policy, like agriculture, there were far more complex forms of governance with a messy panoply of actors – for example agencies working with departments. Sustainability and climate change was a mega or meta policy which covered many other areas of policy, since the world was now in the age of a great environmental crisis. The idea was also increasing that governments were not good at everything. Two US academics, for example, had suggested that governments should steer rather than row the boat.

Many writers saw the changes in governance as a good thing. However, the changes did pose some problems. Lines of accountability were now much more complex. Authority had been dispersed so it was harder to hold people to account. In 2001 the

5

House of Common Public Administration Committee had discovered that there were over 5000 quangos employing over 60,000 people in the UK.

Transparency was also a problem. Complexity obscured the decision making process and there were too many opportunities for buck-passing. Many firms involved in PFIs hid behind commercial confidentiality.

The governance process was also more unstable and unpredictable since global pressures were more erratic and complex than those within the nation state. This caused a problem for coherence and stability – long term government plans were difficult.

The changes in governance had led to a possible democratic deficit. Low turnouts in elections and cynicism about politicians were now common problems in Western Europe, as the UK had seen recently with the expenses scandal. People did not know who was in charge any more. This created a special difficulty for parliamentarians. Parliamentary tasks had become more complex.

The changes in governance also raised a number of questions: was the government able to manipulate the system to get more power or was power flowing away to other bodies; how had the Nolan principles for public life been affected; what new forms of popular participation could be fostered; and could international governance provide some scope for democracy.

Hon. Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed MP (Malaysia) argued that the banking crisis had been caused by a lack of supervision of banks by the US Treasury. The aftermath had been severe. He asked whether it was possible to impose stricter regulations in the new era of globalisation and the demotion of the power of the nation state. If nothing was done the same mistakes could be repeated.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) said that in some countries the government was solely responsible for providing services, like education and health. In others PFIs were coming in. Some officials were resisting PFIs for fear of losing influence. A balance was needed.

Hon. Paul Wai-chun Tse MP (Hong Kong) told delegates that in Ancient Greece individuals could speak their minds in public arenas. The expansion of the state had made this impossible, but the internet had changed the game again, as could be seen in the US election. He wondered whether the internet would bring the world back to a situation where people were expressing their views quickly, a world where it might be possible, for example, to have citizens voting on matters before parliament.

Professor Greenaway said that the banking situation was very stark. He was glad that the crisis had been raised as it was a great example of a failure of accountability in private activity. New formats of governance had to be found, but the vested interests of powerful states would make this difficult.

The culture of officials was a very important question. Old habits die hard, yet it was possible to change a culture. This had happened in the UK, where in the 1970s and 80s the government of the day had supported changes to the typical mandarin. It was

6

important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and to maintain the best of the old culture too.

Hon. Paul Wai-chun Tse MP was absolutely right that the internet was having a major effect. A younger colleague in Professor Greenaway’s department was studying the internet’s effect on democracy. The internet provided a great opportunity to reinvent democracy; however it also posed problems and dangers – for example voters lacking knowledge. Referendums had already shown that the way a question was framed could be very important. He thought it unlikely that voters would ever participate directly in matters before parliament but it was a very nice idea. The Labour government had set up a series of internet consultations a number of years ago, which it called Big Conversations. Such consultations had a habit of disappearing. The internet had certainly helped with accountability though. It was now much harder for authoritarian regimes or even a regular government to hide information.

Hon. Mathew Nyuma MP (Sierra Leone) said that foreign donors did not allow his country to take decisions on spending. There were also problems in Sierra Leone when money was sent into regions without parliamentarians being notified. He asked what could be done to ensure parliament was not bypassed.

Hon. Alfreda Mwambda MP (Zambia) said that in the globalised world economic powers made the key decisions. She asked whether this could be reconciled with weaker economies making their own decisions, to avoid the erosion of sovereignty.

Mr Stuart Farrow MP (South Africa) asked about the implications of the changes in governance for countries that had recently been through a transition process. In such countries, people expected the government to be responsible for certain things and there could be severe implications for governments if people thought services were being outsourced.

Professor Greenaway said it was important to improve links between parliaments, developed bodies and local governments. This was not easy but it was the only solution. Links between institutions might be improved through social networks or geographical links.

National governments had to think about the resources they had which could be used in negotiations with foreign donors. These might be political legitimacy or knowledge of the country.

Cynicism was affecting Western Europe. The only answer was for political parties to be more realistic in their manifestos, although this was not easy due to the political pressures involved. The long term solution had to be political education, which governments and parliaments were not currently very good at. He was always appalled at the low level of knowledge of European institutions in the UK.

Mr Andrew Tuggey DL said that one issue that had already come up at the conference was the amount of money available to parliaments. It was hard to persuade governments to fund parliaments properly, but this was vital if parliaments were to hold governments to account.

7

Professor Greenaway added that there had been a lot of media pressure on MPs in the UK on expenses, but if reforms were extended too far people could end up with democracy on the cheap.

Hon. Rethabile Marumo MP (Lesotho) asked to what extent the ruling party forced parliamentarians to toe the party line.

Mr Andrew Tuggey DL told delegates that the chairman of the previous session had voted against his own party the previous evening.

Hon. David Osbourne MP (Montserrat) asked about measures to reduce corruption. He explained that in Montserrat an Integrity Bill had just been introduced and asked whether the UK also had such legislation.

Hon. Mary Rutamwebwa Mugyenyi MP (Pan African Parliament) said that one challenge for the Commonwealth was the different backgrounds and histories of its members. Together it should be possible to find examples of good governance. Sitting in a regional Parliament herself she realised that different countries had different colonial backgrounds, so had developed different practices. This might be part of the reason for failures in governance in some Commonwealth countries.

Professor Greenaway said that there was a general tendency to toe the party line, but that this did vary from political system to system. For example, Scandinavian countries tended to be more relaxed, but, for no obvious reason, the UK and Germany had stronger party lines. Political parties were both a strength and a weakness; without them most of politics would be chaos, but they could have a stultifying effect.

Corruption was obviously a major problem. In the UK certain principles had been agreed – for example the Nolan Committee had had a lot of influence.

The diversity of practices in the Commonwealth meant that countries had a lot to learn from each other. Assemblies like the CPA were therefore very important – they provided an opportunity for cross fertilisation, of strength through diversity. The UK Parliament had borrowed the idea of Ombudsmen, introduced in the 1960s and 1970s, from Scandinavia.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) said that one issue in Australia was the role of business in elections and asked how their influence could be reduced. He also asked about the judiciary. In the Westminster system there was a Bill of Rights and he wondered how well this defined the judiciary’s role.

Hon. Emilia Monjowa Lifaka MP (Cameroon) said that in the 1980s, when democracy was facing a lot of problems, there had been a lot of legislation on international justice. Most of these rules did not take the specific circumstances of a country into account. This was the case, for example, with loans. Implementation was therefore very difficult – it meant going against people. Developed countries had also asked developing countries to privatise their industries, but the economic crisis was suggesting that this might not have been the right thing to do. She asked whether privatisation was right or not.

8

Hon. Emmanuel Munaile MP (Zambia) said that many NGOS were sponsored by developed countries and spoke with the voice of these sponsors.

Professor Greenaway said that the role of business in elections was crucial. Businesses had a historically relevant role which did not necessarily keep up with tendency and practice. In the UK elections were a permanent event if you considered them in terms of UK public opinion. However, the law treated elections as a three week campaign.

The Bill or Rights and the Westminster system was a bit of a grey area.

The questions from Cameroon had been very interesting. The pressure to privatise came in and out of fashion. It was dangerous to oversimplify the idea of privatisation. It had certain benefits but there were also some advantages in nationalisation. It was important to get the best of both.

One tactic a country might have against pressures from NGOs was to play them off against each other, as NGOs did not all speak with the same voice.

Mr Andrew Tuggey DL said that dealing with NGOs could be very frustrating. He had seen these difficulties for himself while on a visit.

Hon Ahmed Ibrahim MP (Ghana) said that Africans had been told that democracy was the best form of governance. A practical democracy was needed in which Africans took part in decision-making. Otherwise it was easy for authoritarian regimes to develop - people became used to being dictated to.

Hon. Abu Bakarr Koroma MP (Sierra Leone) said that one thing Sierra Leone lacked was resources for its parliament and asked how they might be increased. He explained that Sierra Leone had an anti-corruption commission as well as a committee on transparency and accountability which was supposed to support the former body. However the committee was under-resourced.

Hon. Peter Nyombi MP (Uganda) said that quite often multinationals coming to Africa included money in their budgets for bribes.

Mrs Leanne Rowat MLA (Canada- Manitoba) said that citizens and organisations had talents, but partners needed to understand each other and to think about communication. Action was needed for mutual responsibility. She asked what governments could do about the rights and duties of citizens.

Hon. Lolesia Bukwimba MP (Tanzania) reminded delegates that there had recently been mass rallies in Georgia, Ukraine and Madagascar. He asked whether these rallies were due to governments no longer providing services or whether it was down to globalisation.

Mr Teburoro Tito MP (Kiribati) thanked Professor Greenaway for broadening his perspective. He came from the Pacific, which did not have many delegates at the conference. Pacific countries’ view of the world was that they were at the tail and developed countries at the head. There had been a huge shift of governance to the

9

private sector. He asked if there was any way of regulating the arms sector and the banking system.

Professor Greenaway said that there had been a common theme running through the questions – the importance of grassroots democracy. Parliaments had to think of new ways of communicating with their citizens. More resources had to be put into anti- corruption measures to reduce the risk of the dangers delegates had mentioned. There was now a great opportunity for parliaments to support and engage in the political debate. John Stuart Mill had talked about the importance of the involved citizen – education was key to developing such citizens.

10

Session 2 - MODELS OF GOVERNANCE IN WESTMINSTER PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEMS AND GOVERNANCE IN THE UK

Speaker: Professor Robert Hazell, Director of the Constitution Unit, University College London

Chairman: Andrew Tuggey

Andrew Tuggey welcomed the speaker and introduced him to the delegates.

Professor Hazell, Director of the Constitution Unit, University College London, opened his talk by introducing the UK Parliament. Originating in the 14th century, the UK Parliament was based on the core idea of local representation from each part of the country. It was still based on this idea, and Westminster now had a large chamber based on 646 constituencies, representing a population of approximately 60 million people. The number of constituencies (voting districts) would be increased to 650 after next year’s general election, due to the redrawing of boundaries. Members of Parliament in the UK could serve for a maximum of five years, although a four year term was more usual.

Professor Hazell explained that the House of Lords had approximately 730 members, which made it a very large second chamber (and larger than the first chamber). However, the House of Lords was a ‘part-time’ House in that its members were not paid salaries by Parliament and many did not attend regularly. Daily attendance averaged between 300 and 350, with many Lords also holding professions and jobs elsewhere.

Professor Hazell said that the House of Commons was elected by a majoritarian electoral system, sometimes referred to as ‘First past the Post’. This system was not used by many world parliaments, as it tended to exaggerate the majority of seats gained by the winning party. For example, the Labour Party won 35% of the vote in the last election, yet gained 55% of the seats (giving them a majority of 67 seats in the Commons). In comparison, the House of Lords was appointed rather than elected, and members were appointed for life; as long as the House was appointed, no party could have an overall majority. For example, out of 730 members, only 215 were drawn from the Labour party. Professor Hazell noted that the House of Lords had become noticeably more effective over the last ten years - the Government had been defeated in the Lords Chamber approximately 500 times. This compared with an approximate defeat of 5 times in the Commons over the same period.

Professor Hazell moved on to looking at the executive branch of the Government, known as ‘Whitehall’. There were 15 main Government Departments, and approximately 12 smaller Departments. Each Government Department was shadowed by a Departmental select committee which scrutinised expenditure, administration and policy. The ‘pinnacle’ of the Executive was the Cabinet, which had 23 members. The Government also had 71 junior ministers, bringing the total to 94 serving Ministers in the present Executive. There were also approximately 500,000 civil servants – the number had been reduced over the last 30 years as some functions had been devolved to Executive Agencies.

11

Professor Hazell explained that the Judiciary was now headed by the new Supreme Court, opened by the Queen in October 2009. The Supreme Court replaced the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords as the highest court in the United Kingdom. The 12 top judges from the House of Lords were now the ‘Justices’ of the Supreme Court. He commented that there were three different legal systems in the UK – those of England and Wales; Scotland; and Northern Ireland.

Professor Hazell said that the European Union (EU) had led to a hugely important change in governance over the last 30 years. Founded in the 1950s by the Treaty of Rome, the EU originally had 6 members; the UK was not a founder member of the EU, as it joined in 1973, when the EU already had 12 members. The EU had continued to grow and now had 27 Member States. It was governed by the Council of Ministers who met, as Heads of Government, every 6 months, but who met in other meetings almost every week, and in sectoral meetings (i.e. Fisheries) almost daily. Serving the Council was a bureaucracy called the European Commission, headed by Commissioners appointed by Member States. The European Parliament was the increasingly powerful legislative branch of the EU; its members had been directly elected to the Parliament since 1979 (before this time, members were seconded from National Parliaments). The UK elected about 80 MEPS, with elections taking place every 5 years. The judicial branch of the EU was the European Court of Justice, a powerful supranational court whose decisions were binding – EU law was superior to national law.

Professor Hazell explained that devolved parliaments and assemblies (in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) were a relatively recent development in the governance of the UK, which was a multinational state, with 4 separate nations. Historically, Wales joined with England in the Middle Ages, and the union with Scotland took place in 1707, when Scotland joined Wales and England to form the United Kingdom. Ireland became part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1800, but a series of rebellions throughout the 19th and 20th centuries led to southern Ireland becoming a separate state - the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland remained part of the UK. 1 However, given the separate identities of each nation in the UK, there had always been a demand for devolution, and, 10 years ago in 1999, the newly elected Labour Government established a separate Parliament in Scotland, and Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland.

Professor Hazell noted that delegates would visit the Scottish Parliament during the Conference. He explained that members of its parliament were elected by a different electoral system from Westminster, known as Proportional Representation. 73 MSPs were drawn from constituencies (using the ‘First past the Post’ system of voting), while 56 were Regional representatives (using a system of voting called Additional Members System). No single party had won a majority of seats in the Parliament over the last 3 elections. The Scottish National Party’s minority government wanted to follow a constitutional path to Scottish independence, and planned to introduce an independence referendum bill.

Hon Trusty Gina MP (Swaziland) asked why the UK did not have a constitution.

1 Now known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 12

Hon Abdul Halim Hussain (Speaker, Malaysia Penang) asked whether a ruling made by a House of Commons Speaker had ever been obstructed by the Judiciary.

Rt Hon Rebecca Kadaga MP (Deputy Speaker, Uganda) asked what the practical impact was of the defeats of the Government in the House of Lords over the last 10 years.

Professor Hazell explained why the UK did not have a written constitution - it was very rare for a country to write a constitution in ‘cold blood’. Usually, countries were forced to have a codified constitution due to a variety of reasons, such as independence, revolution, defeats in war, or a collapse of legitimacy i.e. in South Africa or the former USSR. The UK had not been in such a position; however, the UK did have strong constitutional values, and people who defended these values, which he believed was as important as having a written constitution.

To date, courts had been reluctant to become involved in decisions made in Parliament, and Parliamentary Privilege (legal immunity), which was part of the Westminster system, allowed the UK Parliament to be self-governing and free of interference from the courts. However, following the recent expenses and allowances scandal in Westminster, an Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) had been created, as a step towards independent regulation of Parliament.

The House of Lords had defeated the Government 500 times, mostly on legislation. Many of these defeats had been reversed when the Bill returned to the House of Commons, as both Houses needed to agree legislation – in six out of ten cases; the House of Commons had reversed House of Lords defeats.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) asked why the second chamber of the UK Parliament had more members than its first chamber, and asked how the Conservative Party planned to reduce the size of the House of Commons if they were successful in the next election.

Shri Vijay Inder Singla MP (India) focused on the 94 Government Ministers, and asked how many were members of the House of Commons and how many were members of the House of Lords, and who was eligible to become a Minister. He also asked about the Conservative plans for a 10% reduction seats in the House of Commons and wondered which constituencies would be affected. Shri Singla also asked if the membership of the House of Lords was fixed at 730, or if this number could be changed.

Hon Francis Kaboneka MP (Rwanda) asked how the UK Parliament oversaw the Government, and how the House of Lords was appointed.

Professor Hazell explained why the House of Lords was not the same as second chambers in countries with a federal system of government. Although the UK was a union of 4 nations, it was not a federation. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales were federations, but constituted only 15% of the population of the UK – therefore the UK could be considered to be 15% federal. But England, with a population of 50 million,

13 was still governed as a single unit, which was why the second chamber was not federal in nature.

Professor Hazell explored the reasons why the Conservative Party intended to reduce the size of the House of Commons, if it won the next general election. He believed that there was a strong anti-politician climate in the UK, which had become stronger due to the recent Westminster expenses scandal. David Cameron (Leader of the Conservative Party) saw reducing the size of the Commons as a way to reduce the cost of politics overall. As to how he would decide which seats would go, this would be considered as part of a wholesale boundary review of all boundaries, by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission.

Professor Hazell said that the Ministerial Salaries and Other Salaries Act placed a formal limit on the number of Ministers that can be paid by the Government; if the Government wanted more Ministers, these Ministers would need to be unpaid. Members of the House of Lords could be Ministers - there were approximately 15 Ministers drawn from the House of Lords who answered questions in the Lords Chamber. The size of the House of Lords was not fixed. Appointed by the Queen and the Prime Minister (although, in reality, Professor Hazell believed it was often appointment by the PM), the Lords Chamber had the important convention that no party had a majority. The House of Lords totalled 730: the Labour Party had 215 members, the Conservatives had 190 members – the two groups were almost equal in size.

Professor Hazell looked at how the UK Parliament scrutinised the Government - Departmental select committees had been increasingly effective over the last 30 years. Before 1979, there was no such system of scrutiny, but select committees now had small staff teams of their own (between 4 and 6 people) and were powerful scrutiny vehicles.

Hon Beatrice Rwakimari MP (Uganda) asked what benefits the UK gained through its EU membership, and whether developing countries should join forces in same way, to deal with issues such as poverty.

Hon Paul Tse Wai-chun MP (Hong Kong) asked about the development of constituencies in the House of Lords.

Hon Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed MP (Malaysia) asked how the structure of the EU would be affected by the Treaty of Lisbon.

Hon Ahmed Ibrahim MP (Ghana) asked about the composition of the EU, and why European laws were initiated by the EU Commission rather than the EU Parliament.

Professor Hazell said that the EU model of legislation was not that different from the Westminster model, where the initiative and drafting of bills came from the executive branch. Like ‘Whitehall’ in Westminster, the European Commission is the executive branch of the EU, and, as in the UK drafts the bills which then go to the Parliament.

Although members of the House of Lords were not drawn from formal constituencies, Professor Hazell noted that this subject had been part of the debate in the UK

14 regarding the reform of the upper chamber. A recent development was that people could be appointed to the second chamber by an independent commission – the House of Lords Appointments Commission – which selected new independent members of the Lords and tried to ensure that the House of Lords represented the diversity of the people of the UK. The range of skills could be considered as ‘functional’ rather than ‘formal’ constituencies. The Commission aimed to audit the skills represented in the House, and spot any gaps. Professor Hazell also drew attention to the 185 independent non-party peers, such as former senior civil servants, diplomats, businessmen.

Professor Hazell believed that the EU was one of the most ambitious attempts to form an intergovernmental union, and that there were advantages to the UK through its membership of the EU. The EU could tackle problems facing governments which were bigger than a national level and affected several different countries i.e. climate change and coal-power stations. Common resources (such as seas) also involved sharing sovereignty and would be politically difficult for a national government to manage on its own. Although there were some difficulties – for example the UK was geographically separated from continental Europe - the advantages of membership outweighed the disadvantages. He noted a couple of changes that the Lisbon Treaty would bring in. At an intergovernmental level, in future, the EU would have a permanent president appointed by the Council of Ministers rather than a rotating president. At a parliamentary level, the Treaty would give more scrutiny powers to national parliaments.

Helen Haywood thanked the speaker.

15

Session 3 – POLITICAL UPDATE

Speakers Rt Hon Hilary Armstrong MP, Labour Mr Peter Bottomley MP, Conservative Mr Paul Keetch MP, Liberal Democrat

Chairman Baroness D’Souza, Cross Bench

Baroness D’Souza welcomed the delegates to the second day of the seminar. She explained that the session would look at the hot political topics for 2010, issues which would be discussed in the UK and which would affect the Commonwealth. She then introduced the panel.

Mr Peter Bottomley MP welcomed the delegates. He thanked the chair for her introduction but said that his main claim to fame was membership of the “Dennis Thatcher” club, for men who are less important than their wives (his wife was a cabinet minister). He added that Dennis preferred to call it the “Prince Albert club”

Mr Bottomley said that for four years it has been agreed by all parties that Britain is part of Europe as well as part of the Commonwealth. No party had tried to take Britain out of the EU or NATO, and they agreed on the need for a nuclear deterrent. The Tories hadn’t attempted to dismantle the welfare state while Labour hadn’t (for the past 30 years) attempted any nationalisation. All parties agreed that the UK should not be too heavily taxed, but at the same time there had to be help for the vulnerable.

Mr Bottomley said that democracy was an important issue and one he wished the Commonwealth could agree on. A country’s Opposition should be lead by the ex- Prime Minister, who should be able to stay in the country. The Government must be able to say in public that not everything that they did was correct.

Hot topics for 2010 included the economy (although not the trade unions any more) and voting systems; he thinks Labour will prefer reform once it becomes less certain that they will win under the first-past-the-post system. He expected a Lib-Lab agreement on the issue.

The Leadership of political parties in the UK had been settled, there were no challenges to David Cameron or to Nick Clegg, and no-one expected a challenge to Gordon Brown. All three had first class degrees (although a first class degree wasn’t necessary to be a good MP, he had a 3rd).

All parties agreed that they could not make big spending commitments. He had been to Zimbabwe after it had just stopped being South Rhodesia, and had seen locally run “rock schools”. He has also seen what had been achieved in Namibia, what local people could create themselves without money pouring out from the centre.

He concluded that there were no real disputes between the parties, but there would be a lot of campaigning.

Rt Hon Hilary Armstrong MP said that whether you came from what was called a “developed” country or what was called a “developing” country the key crisis was the

16

economy. It had consumed discussions at the G20, the UN and around the world. It had also been the topic of a recent CPA conference in Tanzania. She said that she knew from her work with developing countries that the effect of the economic downturn on them had been far bigger than people in the UK had realised. There was no unanimity amongst countries on whether to pump money into the economy or to cut back and try to reduce the deficit, but these decisions would affect aid levels.

Climate change was a big issue both in the UK and internationally. The CPA had held a seminar earlier in the year to try to find a Commonwealth perspective. She said that she didn’t know of anyone in the world who still resisted the idea of climate change, but there was no agreement on what to do. In the past there had been resistance to the idea of climate change, especially in the US, and this had made the task even more difficult. A worker in her constituency is a youth delegate to the Copenhagen UN Climate Change Conference, which brought home to her how important the issue is to young people. However she did not expect across the board agreement in Copenhagen even though the effects of climate change in some countries were immediate and frightening; they faced losing land and population.

The continuing debate over Iraq and Afghanistan had overtaken the Middle East as an issue, but next year people would have to pay more attention to Israel.

Ms Armstrong argued that the UK needed to restore confidence in politicians and democracy. There needed to be a debate between the people and the political classes. The question was what was the most effective way to achieve a representative democracy which had the trust of the people. The public had to want to have a thriving lively democracy. They needed unprecedented openness and accountability, which meant intrusion into MPs lives. Many of these issues had arisen through the Freedom of Information Act, which had had huge consequences. Now they had to rebuild public confidence.

The economy had to be top of the agenda for next year. Sustainable growth which encouraged equality not inequality was needed. On climate change not everything that was wanted at UN Conference in Copenhagen would be achieved, but there would be building blocks. The UK’s contribution to climate change was minute, but if work was done internationally much more could be achieved. The election of US President Barak Obama was important.

A key international issue was Iran. By next year either Iran would have reached an agreement with the UN on weapons or President Obama would have to take a harder line. Iran could join the international community peacefully or it could become more recalcitrant. This would be a key issue in 2010 and would affect other issues, such as the elections in Palestine, which would in turn affect Israel and the rest of the world.

Mr Paul Keetch MP thanked the CPA for having organized the seminar. He said that he hadn’t realised that all 3 leaders had a first class degree, but that he was proud not to have a degree at all.

There were 3 main topics for 2010, the economy, climate change, and Afghanistan. They were big topics for both the UK and the world. Mr Keetch had been in Australia where he had seen the debate around the Rudd economic stimulus package. They

17 were very proud that they hadn’t gone into recession. In the UK there was a very Northern-centric view of the world. In many parts of the world there hadn’t been a recession, but there would be an impact if aid was cut.

He explained that this was the worst UK recession since the 1980s. However he disagreed with Mr Bottomley when he said that all parties did not favour nationalisation. The UK had just nationalised 3 banks, and the challenge now was to work out how to run them.

There were big issues around UN funding. It needed to be linked to reform of the Security Council. Another big issue was climate change, the effects of which could already been seen in Australian bush fires. Action was being taken: the previous day the government had announced 10 new nuclear power stations, but this was controversial. So was the question of a third runway at Heathrow. Business wanted it, but was investment in aviation the way to go when it was such a big polluter?

Mr Keetch said that he was glad that Ms Armstrong had brought up the issue of Iran, because it was a huge issue, and not just because they were flouting international law. If Iran acquired nuclear weapons then the Saudis and Egypt would follow, and there would be an arms race in the Middle East.

Afghanistan was a major issue. The bodies of six UK service personnel had been brought back through Wootton Bassett that day. There was also the immense effect this was having in Pakistan. The world should do more to welcome the efforts of the Pakistanis in their own country. Mr Keetch had been to Islamabad. The people there had asked why they couldn’t have the drones and missiles they needed. A number of people in Britain had been radicalised in Pakistan.

Mr Keetch was standing down at the next election, a decision he made four years ago because he wanted to “get a proper job”. Gordon Brown had been a good Chancellor, but with him as leader Labour would lose the next election. Politicians needed to reconnect with the British People. The expenses scandal had been of politicians own making. All three leaders had tried to “out hairshirt” each other, letting the media take the lead. The next election would see votes going to small parties, racists, the SNP and celebrities who thought they could run the country because they had had a chat show.

The UK liked to tell the world about democracy but the party in power was voted for by a minority of the electorate, there was a monarch, an unelected second House, and most MPs had in effect been chosen by the parties because whoever had the party ticket would win. It had taken the UK a thousand years to get to this stage. Democracy was the best system, but they could do far better.

Hon Abu Bakarr Koroma (Sierra Leone) asked what the UK would do to help African countries through the recession, especially as the US and the UK had caused the recession and Africa did not have the money for an economic stimulus.

Hon Trish White MP (South Australia) asked Mr Bottomley whether all UK Conservatives were as polite as him and whether as in Australia there was a turnover of people; advisors and so on, when the Government changed?

18

Hon Trusty Gina MP (Swaziland) asked why the G8 was not helping African victims of climate change and asked what is the difference between a monarch and a political party when many countries had the same political party in charge for long periods?

Mr Bottomley said that every Conservative was like him. And most socialist were like Ms Armstrong. All parties had people who are party political and those who were not, “parties divide and issues unite”.

History showed that absolute monarchies did not last forever. While the UK had a monarchy the last time a British monarch acted on her own initiative was when Queen Victoria refused to change her advisers. The key point was whether there was an election system which allowed those who are unpopular to be removed.

He explained that in a lot of Africa the biggest problem was how long it took to get a lorry of goods across a border; 28 days, a lot of paperwork and a lot of payments. Thirty years ago Europe had been like this. If this changed, then trade would work.

Mr Keetch said that however despised our leaders were they were not Head of State. The sooner Swaziland moved that way the better for the king and the people.

There had been huge corruption in aid. The UK had not been good at ensuring aid arrived on the ground in good order. Mr Keetch said that he found it odd that the UK gave aid to countries who themselves gave aid to other countries. He raised the question of whether the UK should give aid to countries with space programmes.

The Copenhagen Conference had to listen to Africa. This was a passion of Gordon Brown. It was good that meetings were now the G20 and not the G8.

Ms Armstrong said that the UK had a responsibility to the people of Sierra Leone and a responsibility to work with the people of Sierra Leone. There were commitments from the UK government and opposition to maintain levels of aid as much as possible. However aid by itself was not enough, trade was needed. African governments needed to give companies the confidence to come and trade without corruption. Whatever the economic situation, it was in their interest, and that of the US and Australia that Africa could move beyond conflict and towards growth. Unless trade worked on a fair basis many countries in Africa would never be aid free.

In 1970s Labour had introduced “Short Money”, named after Ted Short to fund an Official Opposition. The Liberal Democrats received some money as well. Effective political parties were essential for a strong democracy. The government funded the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to build the capacity of political parties around the world, especially in developing countries.

At the G20 Gordon Brown had suggested that they set up a fund to help developing countries with climate change. Developing countries had said “it’s all very well saying we have to cut back but we need to catch up first”. Growth sometimes meant dirty technology. They needed to offer developing countries technologies which were not as dirty. It would take international co-operation.

19

Hon Michel Marie (Seychelles) asked about the Somali pirates and their effect on business.

Hon Beatrice Rwakimari (Uganda) asked the speakers why the world was focused on climate change at this time, and whether this was an attempt to stop developing countries catching up with the West.

Mr Cederick Thomas Frolick (South Africa) asked Mr Keech to expand on his views on UN reform. He also asked Mr Keech to expand on his comments about racist’s parties and what it was they were saying that was winning them support.

Rt Hon Rebecca Kadaga (Tanzania) asked the speakers, at a time when rains had stopped, productivity was very low, and trade was very low, how did they envisage the creation of a fairer world, without aid.

Hon Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed (Malaysia) asked the speakers how long Britain could continue spending when their finances were in such a bad state. He drew attention to the fact Britain required help from the IMF in 1978.

Mr Keetch explained that Britain had two warships off Somalia. However the Geneva Convention dealt with wars between nation states. The situation today was more like that in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Legislation was required to regulate occasions when western countries arrested pirates, or Afghans.

On UN reform, all five members of the Security Council were in the North Hemisphere. When he talked to people who had worked on this issue he had been told that the biggest barrier was agreeing which African country should be on the Council, Egypt, Nigeria or South Africa.

Ms Armstrong explained that climate change was an issue because it didn’t just affect the UK. Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania had seen changes in when and whether rain came. This caused changes in the land, scrub land became desert. Changes were needed so that Brazil and South America did not have to sell commodities which challenge long term sustainability. They needed development which did not put the survival or people or their countries at risk.

In Tanzania the economy was pushing women and children into poverty. The main thing they had to do was to allow countries to grow sustainably. She questioned why solar power was not more available; it needed to be cheaper and more available. When she had visited Tanzania in the past she had seen tractors abandoned because no-one could repair them. Local capacity needed to be developed.

Mr Bottomley said that, if you had active politics you wouldn’t have large numbers going to extremists. This was a challenge to all politicians. They needed to learn the lessons of Kosovo and Yugoslavia.

Development could be sustainable. In Malaysia they had seen people tapping rubber but these were not from natural forests, the trees were planted for the purpose.

20

The prison at Guantanamo had been created as a way of “keeping law away”. Somalia needed an effective government and effective policing to fight piracy. People also needed to stop paying ransoms, if they had never started this would not have become an industry. They also needed to find something else for fishermen to do.

Most bank shares had gone up five-fold since April. The situation was stable; it was with us and behind us, not with us and in front of us. Off balance sheet funding however, needed to be ended.

Ms Armstrong said that the BNP had made inroads into white working class areas by blaming immigrants for a lack of jobs and housing. It was traditional fascist racism and it brought fear. It was attractive in areas where there was a lack of believe amongst people that they could move forward. When things were difficult it was easy for them to explain that this was the fault of immigrants. They had said that they would offer people money to go home, even though many of them were third or fourth generation, or had fled conflict.

Mr Keetch said that there had been a BNP rally in Herefordshire even though it was a Conservative/Liberal area, not a Labour one. Here the BNP complained about Lithuanian fruit pickers and about the EU.

21

Session 4 - STRENGTHENING PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY

Speakers: Mr Hugh Bayley MP, Chair, Africa All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) Ms Sian Dixon, Communications and Information Director, Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) Mr Greg Power, Global Partners

Chairman: Andrew Tuggey DL

Mr Andrew Tuggey DL welcomed the speakers and introduced them to the delegates. He explained that the focus of the session would be on the role of international organisations in building the capacity of parliaments to ensure good governance and strengthen parliamentary democracy.

Mr Hugh Bayley MP, Chair, Africa APPG, explained that he had a strong interest in the role of parliaments in holding executives to account. He said that most government ministers were a little cautious about the role of their parliament, and that some, particularly governments in decline, even feared their parliaments. He said that the UK Parliament was only one of several models in the Commonwealth. It was a system which had developed over several centuries to fulfil the role of holding the executive to account which suited the UK context. The UK model would not be applicable everywhere, but there were certain principles on which it was based that could be more widely applicable. In his view a strong parliament improved government, in part by reducing dissent which might otherwise be expressed in extreme ways, for example in revolution.

Mr Bayley considered that several ingredients aided strong parliamentary democracy. Parliaments were dependent on good sources of information. For example, the Library of the UK Parliament supplied parliamentarians with facts and figures which enabled them to probe details of government policy and hold the executive to account. Strong IT systems, which enabled access to online resources and information, were also important, as were trained officials (Clerks) who worked dispassionately for members across all political parties.

However, none of these elements could be effective unless politicians had the political will to probe and hold the executive to account. Without this, parliaments could simply become government lapdogs. Mr Bayley gave the example of a programme commissioned from the Westminster Foundation for Democracy by the UK government several years ago, which worked across political parties in Sierra Leone prior to the general election to encourage democratic debate. The programme included running a version of the ‘Any Questions’ televised political debate, in which politicians answered unscripted questions from the public. However, the most valuable exercise was scenario planning with politicians, in which they thought through what would happen if they won, or conversely lost, the forthcoming election. This included planning in detail the legislative programme they would introduce if victorious, and on the other hand, if defeated, how the handover of power would work in practice.

22

Mr Bayley concluded that building capacity was an “intensely political job”, the role of scrutiny was all-important and that parliaments the world over could learn from one another, new from old and old from new.

Ms Sian Dixon, Communications and Information Director, Westminster Foundation for Democracy, gave a brief overview to the structure and purpose of the Foundation. It had been established in 1992 to support the consolidation of democratic institutions and accountability in developing democracies. Sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department for International Development and the British Council amongst others, it sought to strengthen the institutions of democracy, principally political parties (through the work of the UK political parties), parliaments and the range of institutions that made up civil society. It ran programmes in Europe (Macedonia, Ukraine and Georgia), in the Middle East and North Africa (mainly Lebanon and Egypt) and in Africa (principally Kenya, Uganda and Sierra Leone).

The Foundation had particular expertise in parliamentary strengthening, and in political party development. In terms of parliamentary strengthening, the Foundation addressed specific challenges which threatened parliamentary capacity, such as high turnover of staff and members post-election. In terms of political party development it worked on both party-to-party, and cross-party, bases to help parties develop policy and campaigning techniques.

In the previous year the Foundation had established The Westminster Consortium for Parliaments and Democracy (TWC). The TWC was made up of a group of organisations that worked collectively to strengthen parliamentary democracy by building capacity in the areas of parliamentary process and management, financial oversight and access to information. The aim was to develop sustainable capacity building in five parliaments: Ukraine, Georgia, Uganda, Mozambique, and Lebanon. The TWC approach centred on pairing local and Westminster partners, with local partners driving the development of programmes in conjunction with their Westminster partners. The aim was eventually to establish in-country study centres, but in the meantime programmes were developed via online communities, and annual conferences.

Mr Greg Power, Global Partners, explained that he had previously worked for the Hansard Society and then as a Special Advisor on parliamentary reform to Robin Cook, and subsequently Peter Hain, when each was Leader of the House. In 2005 he had set up Global Partners, an organisation which worked to build parliamentary democracies around the world, including in Baghdad, the Southern Sudan and Armenia.

During his career Mr Power had been struck by the fact that democratic reforms were far harder to achieve once in Government than they had seemed from the outside. He noted that plenty of literature existed on the process of reform, but very little on the politics of reform. A Swedish study in 2005 had demonstrated how vital the political will was for change, and highlighted the gap between possessing the powers to effect change, and the will to drive change.

Mr Power judged there to be three main obstacles to parliamentary reform. The first was capacity: this included problems such as misunderstanding of parliamentary

23

powers by members and staff. The second was political difficulties: to give two examples, attempts to strengthen parliament could sometimes be seen as interfering with government, and reformers were often wary of engaging with political parties. The third was a desire amongst donors to apply ‘universal rules’ to building democracies.

Mr Power set out some of the institutional difficulties with parliamentary reform. Absence of an institutional ethos was problematic, sometimes meaning that parliamentarians saw themselves first as political party members rather than as parliamentarians. In some institutions it could be difficult to understand who was “in charge” of the parliament—whether the chief whip, the Leader of the House or the Speaker. The complexity of individual and group interests within a parliament could also hamper reform. He considered that these difficulties were more complex in newer parliamentary systems, where the position of Speaker might command less authority than in older, well-established systems. It was perhaps easier for older parliaments to accept first the existence of rules and then the particular ways in which the rules could be interpreted—how to ‘play the game within the rules, once the rules of the game had been established’.

Mr Power was drawing up a universal framework, to be published the following year, for understanding the challenges of parliamentary reform. The framework comprised three elements: understanding political incentives and multiple accountabilities (including why individuals became parliamentarians, sources of patronage, to what extent parliamentarians were dependent on their political parties for progression); mapping patterns of institutional power (including who needed to support reform, who within institutions could drive reform, and external pressures for change); and constructing programmes for reform.

Andrew Tuggey DL thanked the speakers and invited questions from the delegates.

Mr Stuart Farrow MP (South Africa) noted that South Africa was an emerging democracy and as such had a particular interest in methods of holding the executive to account. A key debate in South Africa was about the (lack of) responses from the executive to parliamentary questions. He asked whether other parliaments had any mechanism to ensure that questions were answered. He also explained that the South African system limited speaking time in the chamber which could stymie debate, and asked how the timing of speeches worked in the UK Parliament.

Mr Teburoro Tito MP (Kiribati) said that in Kiribati the Speaker was not elected, but that there was interest in moving to an elected system. He asked about the process of electing a Speaker in the UK.

Deputy Speaker Rt Hon. Rebecca Kadaga MP (Uganda) thanked the UK for its work with the Ugandan Parliament. She explained that there had been cases in Uganda where parliamentarians had been rebuked by party leaders for asking awkward questions of the executive, and asked how parliament could protect its members from harassment by political parties.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) said that in Bangladesh a conflict often arose for parliamentarians between their constituency commitments and

24

their national role as a parliamentarian. For example, during elections they seemed to commit to funding things locally, which they could not always deliver once elected. He asked how this conflict between local and national roles could be addressed.

Mr Bayley responded that in the UK the Speaker had no power to compel answers to parliamentary questions, but did have the power to chide the government if it failed to answer questions in time. He noted that parliament also had other tools at its disposal, for example any parliamentarian could table an Early Day Motion on the order paper expressing outrage at the lack of response, or they might go to the local media. Alternatively a parliamentarian could table a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

Mr Bayley said that the time allotted for individual speeches varied between debates. It was good practice for any parliamentarian who wished to speak in a debate to write to the Speaker beforehand and request to speak. The Speaker would then allot a time for speeches which would be set out on the order paper. It was the tradition in the UK that parliamentarians could interrupt one another’s speeches, a convention which he judged to be an important tool in challenging speakers.

Mr Bayley said that harassment did sometimes occur in parliamentary systems based around control by political parties. He suggested various actions that parliamentarians could take: to appeal to the public via the media; to form an alliance with an external organisation, such as Transparency International, and pass them information; or, in extremis, to change party.

Mr Power suggested that one response to governments not answering parliamentary questions was to keep records of questions asked and answers given, and publish regular reports ‘naming and shaming’ the worst departments and ministers.

Mr Power believed that a useful tool against harassment was to create alternative career paths and structures within the parliament—such as Committees—which were not entirely dependent on political parties and their whips.

Mr Power noted that the role of Speaker varied greatly between parliaments. One advantage of the UK system of electing a Speaker was that they stood above politics, and this neutrality was respected across the political parties: for example, there was a convention that no party put up a candidate in the Speaker’s constituency at an election. A disadvantage of the UK system was that the Speaker’s consequent tendency to avoid political topics could affect their leadership.

Mr Bayley responded to the question of conflict between the local and national role of parliamentarians. He said that the UK Parliament funded constituency offices for parliamentarians, but for limited and specific purposes. The funds could be used for advocacy by the parliamentarian, but not to pay for goods and services for their constituents.

Deputy Speaker Rt Hon. Rebecca Kadaga MP (Uganda) noted that in Uganda an NGO had recently begun evaluating the performance of parliamentarians, by recording and publishing key elements of their parliamentary duties, including whether they had established a constituency office, the regularity with which they

25

spoke in the House, and how frequently they attended parliament. The NGO rated individual parliamentarians and published the information and ratings.

Hon. Alpha Abu Bakarr Koroma MP (Sierra Leone) asked what the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) was doing to strengthen democracy in Sierra Leone.

Miss Cynthia Y Forde MP (Barbados) explained that Barbados was a small society, with 270,000 inhabitants. She noted that personal attacks and mudslinging had driven some of the best candidates, especially women, away from politics and asked how that could be addressed.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) described Westminster as the ‘mother of all parliaments’. She noted, however, that it had recently undergone a significant crisis, and that it seemed likely that the 2010 general election would see a high turnover of parliamentarians. She asked whether the recent expenses scandal would disincentivise individuals from standing for parliament. She also asked whether the recent scandal should be seen as a crisis of an outdated parliamentary system in the face of technological and other advances, or as a crisis of leadership.

Shri Vijay Inder Singla MP (India) asked how the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) strengthened and developed political parties.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) said that, according to recent reports, the UK possessed a “vibrant professional parliamentary media”. He asked how this might be defined.

Hon. Peter Nyombi MP (Uganda) asked whether harassment of parliamentarians by their parties was a sign of weakness by political parties, and whether there was a need to strengthen political parties as well as parliaments.

Hon. Emmanuel Munaile MP (Zambia) asked how parliamentarians could also be members of the executive, and whether a democracy could be effective when pressure was exerted on ministers to vote in a party political way.

Ms Dixon responded that Sierra Leone was a priority country for the WFD. It ran capacity building programmes in Sierra Leone which had been initially focused mainly on providing equipment.

Ms Dixon said that half of the Foundation’s funding was channelled through political parties in the UK to encourage them to engage with their sister political parties in the target country. The Foundation also worked on a cross-party basis within specific countries.

Mr Power said that personal attacks can deter prospective candidates, often especially women. He noted that the UK had implemented changes aimed at making parliament more accommodating to women, such as changing the sitting times to prevent late night sittings.

26

Mr Power considered that UK parliamentary officials were “wide-eyed” at the prospect of very large numbers of new parliamentarians following the general election in 2010, but believed that a more interesting consequence of the crisis could be voter turnout at the election. He thought that a very low turnout might itself prompt further changes to the way in which the UK Parliament worked.

Mr Bayley thought that strengthening parliaments, especially ensuring that they had their own resources, was paramount.

Mr Bayley noted that one advantage of parliamentarians also being ministers was that they were immediately accountable and accessible to their fellow parliamentarians, for example in the division lobby. However, the corresponding disadvantage was that parliament as a whole might be less critical of the executive.

Mr Bayley considered that the expenses scandal at Westminster had proved a very significant event in UK politics, and had been caused above all by a lack of transparency. Although he thought that there had probably not been more than a dozen parliamentarians who had grossly misused their expenses, he believed the big scandal to have been the softly policed system, which had encouraged a complex web of allowances rather than an open and transparent debate.

Mr Bayley noted that a vibrant parliamentary media was not always good for parliamentarians. On the other hand, the UK media had been instrumental in driving reform over the UK expenses scandal, which illustrated that it could play an important role in driving parliamentary accountability.

Mr Tuggey thanked the speakers on behalf of the delegates.

27

Session 5 - THE SCRUTINY ROLE OF THE MEDIA

Speakers: Mr Simon Hoggart, The Guardian Mr Norman Smith, BBC News, Political Correspondent

Chairman: Mr Derek Wyatt MP

Mr Derek Wyatt MP directed delegates to his own website which was the most popularly seen website of all Westminster politicians - 73,000 pages of the site had been visited in the last week. He urged all delegates present to create their own website and link it to social networking websites such as Twitter and Facebook. He stressed that such modes of communication would only become more popular and a more important tool of communication in future.

Mr Simon Hoggart described two recent examples of the media holding the Government to account which he felt summarised the modern relationship between the media and politicians. 1. The expenses scandal; the media kept on top of this story and showed the advantages of “constant coverage” in bringing greater openness and transparency to proceedings and by being able to continually run the story through blogs etc. Newspapers were no longer limited for space as they produced everything on the internet and therefore could run stories for longer and in more depth. 2. Gordon Brown’s recent misspelt letter; which in Mr Hoggart’s view showed the worst of modern reporting – not only did it exaggerate the importance of a relatively minor story but the media also wanted “more than an apology” – increasingly the media demand an ever- greater emotional response to the detriment of coverage of “real” issues. These two examples showed the changes that occurred in politics reporting since he began at Westminster in the early 1970s; a rise in “e-media” and a corresponding greater diversification of news sources demanding ever quicker responses and making politics a “24 hour business”. He said that this meant that there was no time checking facts and reflecting on the nuances of a story. In turn this led to the media taking more things at face value and exaggerating the importance of minor stories because of the demand for constant news. He suggested that this was harmful to politics, the press and the public.

Mr Norman Smith reiterated that the pace of media coverage had increased dramatically – there was no gestation of stories, instead there was a continual bombardment of news. Increasingly, instead of finding and investigating news stories themselves, journalists merely processed the stories. This relentless pace had also shifted the balance of power away from the political classes and to the media. This shift in power created a degree of reticence from political leaders and an unwillingness to discuss ideas. The constant scrutiny of any comment or policy option expressed by a politician discouraged decision-making and “thinking out loud”, in turn this led to the setting up of reviews by “independent” experts; these reviews gave politicians political cover to act.

28

There was a balance to be struck between the plusses to democracy of constant media scrutiny, such as greater openness and transparency, and the danger that intense media scrutiny would drive away political talent as people became less willing to enter such an arena. If this happened, it would do great harm to governance.

Hon. Trish White MP (South Australia) asked whether the new forms of media were too invasive and did great damage to politics through the reduction, and removal, of thinking time available to politicians. She also asked whether the greater amount “selective reading” which took place on the internet did harm to the spread of ideas since people would only read what confirmed their initial prejudices.

Norman Smith commented that the lack of thinking time worked both ways; journalists also lacked time to check their facts and sources. It was viewed as more important to be first and loudest than right. He also agreed that news media were much more partisan than “traditional” print and television, and this mirrored political dialogue; for him, this highlighted the importance of the BBC, which at least tried to be impartial. While he praised the BBC he also stressed that there were no shortcuts to creating an independent broadcaster, and in many places it might be impossible. There was also a real danger that such a broadcaster would become monolithic and destroy smaller, independent news outlets.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossian Chowdury MP (Bangladesh) asked whether print newspapers would ever die out.

Simon Hoggart suggested that the problem was that people demanded, and were used to “free news”, but “proper” investigative news was expensive to produce. The danger was that newspapers ran out of money and lost the ability to undertake long- term. investigative stories. In his opinion, rather than working for one news outlet, the future of journalism would involve journalists becoming experts in their field and working freelance, writing columns in their chosen field as and when there was demand. He also highlighted that the print Guardian was read by around 600,000 per day, while the online version had 7 million viewers in America alone. Print newspapers might not die out, but they would have to fundamentally change.

Hon. Trusty Gina MP, (Swaziland) asked why news had become “24 hours a day”, and what benefits this brought.

Norman Smith stressed that despite the problems caused by 24 hour news coverage, on the whole it was beneficial because it had brought that immediate access. There was also a temptation to exaggerate the importance of 24 hour news beyond the media and political classes.

Senator Doug Cameron (Australia) asked why the BBC had invited the British National Party on to Question Time, and why, if it was merely a pursuit of ratings commercial stations did not do the same thing?

Norman Smith explained that the BNP had passed an electoral threshold and in the BBC’s view it would be discriminatory not to invite them; the BBC, or any state broadcaster, should not be the judge of what was a valid and acceptable viewpoint.

29

Hon Ahmed Ibrahim MP (Ghana) and Hon Alfreda Mwamba (Zambia) both asked whether controls should be placed on the media to prevent overly partisan and personal attacks. Mr Ibrahim further asked whether there was a danger of the media making rather than reporting the news. Norman Smith agreed that this was a potential problem but suggested that the best solution, rather than restricting and possibly censoring existing news outlets, would be to encourage a multiplicity of news outlets and views to dilute the power of any one source. This would be more effective than giving the government the power to “authorise” particular comments.

Simon Hoggart stressed that it would be a “slippery slope” once the Government began to set arbitrary rules on what was acceptable to print. To some degree, politicians must accept “irresponsible”, personal journalism as the price to pay for living in a free society and benefiting from a free media.

30

Session 6 - JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Speakers: Rt Hon Baroness Butler-Sloss GBE Mr Alex Wilkes, Programme Lawyer, International Bar Association Lord Dubs, Member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights

Chairman: Rt Hon Peter Bottomley MP

Peter Bottomley MP welcomed the delegates to the session and introduced Baroness Butler-Sloss as the first speaker

Baroness Butler-Sloss said that she spoke from the perspective of a judge, having practiced as a judge for 35 years prior to becoming a Member of the House of Lords. She said that the Magna Carta, the cornerstone of English law, had been derived from an attempt by the barons to rein in the King, yet it had proved to be a document that resonated through the centuries to mean a great deal more. She insisted that it was still very significant, and was regularly referred to in American law briefs.

She said that the Human Rights Act in the UK was passed in 2000 by a Labour Government, and it had incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. The principles of the Human Rights Act were already embedded in English law, but for the first time these rights were explicitly put “up front”. The distortion and extension of the Act in certain areas had led to Government suggestions that it should be replaced with a Bill of Rights. However, this led to the inevitable, and difficult, question of what to take out and what to retain.

Fairness was one of the most important elements of human rights: people needed to be treated equally, and with respect. Most importantly, it was necessary to maintain the independence of judges.

Mr Alex Wilkes, Programme Lawyer, International Bar Association (IBA), began by introducing his organisation, which was the world’s largest association of legal professionals, and worked to promote and protect the independence of judges. He then stressed the importance of an effective link between the legislature, legal profession and civil society to the rule of law.

He spoke about two projects that the IBA had been involved in. Firstly, the IBA ran a Human Rights for Parliamentarians course, funded by DfID, and operating in several countries. It was open to MPs and parliamentary staff, and it focused on upholding the rule of law. He had just returned from delivering one of the training sessions in Macedonia, a country where human rights was deemed increasingly important as it sought to amend its laws in order to be eligible to join the EU.

Secondly, the IBA sought to introduce a collaborative approach to upholding human rights in Afghanistan, a country where Britain had retained some colonial interest. In the past, lawyers in Afghanistan were not independent, there was no bar exam, and there was no word for ‘bar association’. In 2005, with the assistance of the IBA, the Afghan authorities began a consultation period on a draft ruling to allow the formation of an association. This eventually passed into law in 2007, without

31

significant amendment. A year after its formation, the new association had already begun to speak out on human rights issues.

Both projects demonstrated that much could be achieved if different parties were willing to work collaboratively.

Peter Bottomley MP made two recommendations – to look at the Liberty website, and to read the book ‘Values in a Godless Age’ – before he introduced the next speaker.

Lord Dubs introduced the process of scrutiny of human rights in the UK Parliament. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which he was a member, was unusual because it comprised Members of both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Joint Committee carried out four major tasks, outlined in turn.

Firstly, it scrutinised legislation by reviewing Bills. For instance, the Committee looked at the anti-terrorism legislation that made provision to retain people without charge for 42 days. It opposed this legislation, on the grounds that the Government had not made its case satisfactorily, and the legislation was not introduced.

Secondly, the Committee looked at specific, major topics where human rights was of particular importance. It had considered a Bill of Rights for Britain, and the Committee had visited South Africa in order to investigate the Bill of Rights that had been implemented there. The Committee had also recently looked into policing and protest, and business and human rights.

Thirdly, the Committee reviewed the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and whether the UK Government had implemented the rulings. For instance the ECHR had ruled that a blanket ban on voting rights for prisoners was wrong, but this had proved to be a difficult position for the UK Government to adopt.

Fourthly, the Committee held regular seminars with key stakeholders on human rights issues.

The Committee was often critical of the Government, so it was even more unpopular within Government than the other Commons and Lords committees. However, this was only natural; in order to maintain human rights it was vital to continually push them to the forefront of the Government’s consciousness.

Andrew Tuggey, Secretary, CPA, having taken over from Peter Bottomley in the Chair, said that it was imperative that all parliaments learned from one another. The UK’s Joint Committee on Human Rights required a staff of eight clerks in order for it to fully perform its function. He then opened the session to questions from the floor.

Hon Emilia Monjowa Lifaka MP (Cameroon) asked where the line should be drawn on human rights; whether the rights of the criminal were given undue prominence compared to the rights of the victim. She also asked why the international community dealt so much with civil society, which was unelected.

32

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) said that because human rights laws were for public but not private organisations, they were not complete laws. He asked what role there was for Transparency International.

Mr Stuart Farrow MP (South Africa) asked what the IBA was doing to support human rights in countries such as Zimbabwe. He also asked what the relationship was between the UK and The Hague.

Baroness Butler-Sloss said that there was a difficult balance between the rights of the criminal and those of the victim, but the application of proportionality in human rights was the key. As regards The Hague, it was necessary for there to be some place of reckoning for the atrocities of this world, and it remained to be seen whether the day of reckoning for Zimbabwe would ever arrive.

Lord Dubs said that there had been a lot of criticism of human rights legislation in the British press. He agreed that proportionality in the application of human rights was required in order to retain public support. By favouring the criminal over the victim, the argument for human rights would be lost.

Civil society (or NGOs) was of course unelected, but it did have expertise. A country without NGOs such as Amnesty International would be the poorer for it. Politicians should listen to civil society, but it was not necessary to always agree with their views.

Mr Alex Wilkes said that the IBA had worked with civil society in Afghanistan – in the form of the legal profession – and this led to the formation of better legislation as a result. As for Zimbabwe, although the IBA had been outspoken in its criticism, it had been difficult to have much impact on human rights on the ground. However, the IBA had recently begun talks with the Zimbabwe Lawyers Society.

Lord Dubs said that his Committee listened to Transparency International, but they were only one voice. It was important to be both proactive and reactive in respect of human rights, and to recognise that not all the answers had yet been found.

Hon Nisar Ahmed Khuhro MP (Pakistan) asked about the membership of Select Committees, and whether the Chairman was a member of the Government. He also called on delegates to do away with the term “civil society”, on the grounds that politicians were civil too.

Senator Douglas Hamilton (Australia) asked the panel for their views on judicial activism.

Rt Hon Rebecca Kadaga MP (Uganda) asked if she could see a copy of the Joint Committee’s rules of procedure. She said that Europeans were too concerned with civil rights, and had neglected social and economic rights. Finally, she raised the issue of marital rape in Afghanistan.

Mr Alex Wilkes said that the IBA was operating in Uganda. As regards Afghanistan, it was a difficult situation, although it needed to be noted that the proposed law legalising marital rape was ultimately not promulgated by the President.

33

Baroness Butler-Sloss said that Lord Irvine had given a lecture in which he said that he hoped there wouldn’t be judicial activism as a result of the Human Rights Act. She said that she didn’t think the judiciary wanted to extend its powers, but that it would be interesting to see how the new Supreme Court bedded down.

Lord Dubs said that the membership of Select Committees was proportionate to the whole legislative chamber, and the Chairs were sometimes from Government, and sometimes not. The rules of procedure of the Joint Committee could be found on the Parliament website.

The balance between parliamentary responsibility and the responsibility of the courts was a difficult issue, and one which had no easy solution.

Baroness Butler-Sloss said that she was a cross-bencher, and members like her were also represented on Lords committees. It was her ambition to become a member of Lord Dubs’ Committee.

Hon Trusty Gina MP (Swaziland) asked what the criteria were to hold countries to account that had not upheld human rights.

Hon Abdikadir Hussein Mohammed MP (Kenya) asked for comments on the proposal for all judges in Kenya to step down prior to possible reappointment.

Hon Kwabena Darko-Mensah MP (Ghana) asked what human rights activists were doing about corruption in the judicial system. In Ghana there was a problem with “mob justice”.

Mr Teburoro Tito MP (Kiribati) asked how citizens could be assisted in taking a case to court when they didn’t have any lawyers.

Hon Kipronoh Magerer Langat MP (Kenya) asked the panel for their views on impunity in the legal system.

Baroness Butler-Sloss said that a change in the appointments system in England meant that judges were appointed by the Appointments Commission, rather than by the Prime Minister or the Lord Chancellor. This was a more transparent solution, and it was an option for Kenya too. Sacking the entire Kenyan judiciary would result in chaos.

Lord Dubs said that the Equality and Human Rights Commission helped citizens to take their cases to the courts.

Mr Alex Wilkes said that the IBA went into countries where tension existed between the judiciary and the executive. The IBA provided training for legal professionals as required by the specific demands of working in that country.

34

Session 1 - YOUNG PEOPLE AND POLITICS: ENGAGING THE NEXT GENERATION

Speakers: Mr Tom O’Leary, Parliamentary Education Service Mr James Bartle, UK Youth Parliament Miss Barbara Soetan, Nkabom Commonwealth youth Project

Chairman: Miss Christine Russell MP (Labour)

Miss Christine Russell MP explained how she had been active in politics when she was a student but that this had waned when she married and had children. Her motivation had been opposing Margaret Thatcher. She was concerned that there was a need to get young people interested through for example citizenship programmes and to keep them interested as young adults as 25% of the under 25s had not voted in the last election.

Mr Tom O’Leary, Parliamentary Education Service, said he was concerned with getting young people interested in politics in the first place. He worked with schools and both Houses. The Education Service had been preceded by the Education Unit which had been in existence for twenty years and had been ‘bumbling along’. However this changed in 2004/05 with the publication of a report which found that Parliament was not connecting with the public and recommended that serious engagement was required. Mr O’Leary joined the House of Commons two years ago with the aim of raising standards; he employed 23 staff in the Education Service and was planning a new education centre. His vision was to: inform young people; engage young people; and to empower young people to get involved in the political process. He said that most of his work was concerned with informing young people as there was a very low knowledge base about Parliament. 63% of 18-23 year olds did not vote in the last election and this was called the ‘democratic deficit’. This did not just exist in the UK but was apparent across the world and was caused by alienation, disengagement, a lack of trust, indifference and disinterest. He explained that young people were not apathetic but that they participated in a non formal political way for example through: Facebook and Twitter; and through consumerism. He believed that they did not relate this back to Parliament as they had not been taught about Parliament’s role.

Mr O’Leary said that the Education Service brought young people between the ages of seven and eighteen to Parliament for workshops and to meet MPs and Peers. In the last two years the number of visits had increased from 11,000 to 38,000 and the scheme was now operating at full capacity. However in 2013 when the new education centre would be completed the capacity for students would increase to 100,000 a year. In addition to young people using the education services approximately 45,000 young people visited Parliament through their MP each year. The Education Service was integrating technology into workshops, such as the use of hand held voting devices, because young people were ‘digital natives’. In addition the service was quality assessing the visits and workshops and training its own staff in citizenship.

Mr O’ Leary said that as well as welcoming young people to Parliament the Education Service also went out into schools for example to train teachers. It had

35

been found that political literacy amongst teachers needed improving and that this was the weakest element of citizenship lessons. This work was underpinned by publications as not all schools could be visited. In addition new technology was also being built to assist teachers for example an i-phone application, a website with games, an interactive white board resource as well as DVDs. Mr O’Leary believed that computer games were a powerful medium to teach young people and the Education Service together with gaming companies had designed: ‘MP for a week’ and the ‘Democracy Game’. The service also worked with a variety of organisations for example it was working with the BBC on a schools’ Question Time.

In summing up Mr O’ Leary said that the Education Service was an expanding service, with a broad range of services and its aim was to engage young people in politics so that they would exercise their right to vote when they reached 18 years old.

Miss Barbara Soetan, Nkabom Commonwealth Youth Project, explained that the word ‘Nkabom’ meant ‘coming together’ and ‘unity’ in Ghana. She said that the Commonwealth Youth Project hosted a 2 week programme for young people to build their skills and help them find out about issues. Last year it was entitled ‘Conflict and Beyond’ and was held in Cyprus where they met heads of state from both sides. The aim was to see what role young people could have in influencing policy makers. The delegates were encouraged to use what they had learnt when they returned to their countries and to produce peace building toolkits. The Commonwealth Youth Project aimed to engage young people in global projects for example the Millennium Goals and to make them relevant to their local environment.

Mr James Bartle, UK Youth Parliament, said that he was seventeen years old and from Newcastle. He explained that the UK Youth Parliament was a national voluntary organisation with 500 members from all over the UK. All members were democratically elected and voting participation was as high as 61% in Leeds for the Youth Parliament. The organisation was non partisan and did not represent any political party. There was equal representation of men and women, 22% black or minority ethnic members and 2% of members had a disability. The Youth Parliament had three national campaigns a year. This year they were: tuition fees, concessionary cards for public transport and improving political education in schools. They had a four day annual sitting in July and this year they had heard from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Commons Speaker John Bercow MP. Youth Parliament representatives regularly met with Ministers and MPs. This March MPs voted to allow the Youth Parliament to meet in the House of Commons Chamber. This was chaired by the Speaker. Mr Bartle explained that it was a myth that young people were not interested in politics but that they were turned off by the formal political process. Young people were passionate about issues. He believed that the challenge over the next decade would be for Parliament to catch up with the population by engaging in technology. He also believed that education was the key for young people’s engagement and they should be exposed at a younger age. He concluded that young people could not take part in something they were not informed about.

Miss Christine Russell MP told delegates that the Government had passed legislation that made it a statutory responsibility for local councils to consult youth groups.

36

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP, Bangladesh, asked what the age limit for the Youth Parliament was and asked whether young people were actually appointed to local councils.

Mr Kelvin Davis MP, New Zealand, said that the challenge was up skilling teachers.

Hon. Mathew Nyuma MP, Sierra Leone, asked how political parties mobilised the resource of young people.

Mr James Bartle said that the age limit was eleven to eighteen for the Youth Parliament and that members could stand for election up to their eighteenth birthday.

Miss Christine Russell MP explained that young people did not serve on local councils but that councils had a responsibility to consult them. For example, she had held a youth forum in her constituency and 75 young people between the ages of thirteen and seventeen had attended to talk with local councillors. She found it interesting that the young people had had a commonality of interest whatever their social background.

Mr Tom O’Leary, said that teacher training at college was as important as in service teacher training and that the Education Service aimed to improve knowledge in both. The Educaiton Service invited teacher trainees to come to Parliament for a week and learn about politics.

Miss Christine Russell MP said that her party was examining how young people could be mobilised and was studying the Obama campaign.

Shri Vijay Inder Singla MP, India, asked if there was a career structure in the UK whereby members of the Youth Parliament could become MPs.

Hon. Kipronoh Magerer Langat MP, Kenya, said that in Kenya 50% of the voting population was between the ages of eighteen and thirty five.

Miss Christine Russell MP said that it was the reverse in the UK where a large proportion of the population were over 65 and known as the ‘grey vote’.

Hon. David Osbourne MP, Montserrat, congratulated James Bartle and said that the youngest member of his Parliament had been a member of the Youth Parliament and was now a minister. He wished his best to the UK Youth Parliament.

Mr James Bartle answered that in the UK most political parties had a youth wing and that there was a career structure whereby young party members could progress to being local councillors and then move up to being an MP. He said that it would be the tenth anniversary of the Youth Parliament in 2010 and he hoped to see some of the original members become MPs and Ministers soon.

37

Session 2 - REPRESENTING DIVERSITY

Speakers: Professor Baroness Young of Hornsey OBE Mr Ashok Viswanathan, Deputy Director, Operation Black Vote

Chairman: Baroness Falkner of Margravine

Baroness Falkner of Margravine explained that she was a Liberal Democrat peer in the House of Lords who spoke on issues related to the Ministry of Justice for her party. She had a Commonwealth connection in that she had once been Political Adviser to the Commonwealth Secretariat, which had been one of the best jobs that she had ever had.

In chairing the session Baroness Falkner intended to leave a long period of time for questions because the subject under discussion was so meaty. She herself had been looking at it for twenty years.

Baroness Falkner introduced Baroness Young, who had both an arts and an academic background. She sat on the cross benches in the House of Lords and was what was called a “people’s peer”. She had arrived in the House of Lords in 2004, at the same time as Baroness Falkner and as part of a relatively diverse group of people.

Professor Baroness Young of Hornsey OBE said that she was delighted to be addressing the conference. She, too, had a Commonwealth connection. Her parents came from Nigeria, but she herself was also a member of the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. She chaired a Commonwealth Group on Culture and Development.

Diversity was a subject close to Baroness Young’s heart. It was a live and meaty issue and one which had recently attracted a good deal of controversy within the UK.

Baroness Young explained that, even though Britain was relatively diverse, by 2008 the House of Lords had only accepted women peers for 50 years. It was only 90 years since women over the age of 30 had been given the right to vote in the UK. These statistics set out the backdrop against which the position of women in political life had to be considered.

Baroness Young belonged to the first generation of women for whom it was taken for granted that they would go to university or get a job. Yet women had not yet played a fully representative part in public life. The UK had experienced only one female Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who had been elected in 1979. This was not as much of a breakthrough as might have been expected. Mrs Thatcher notoriously only had one other woman in her Cabinet.

Baroness Young noted that the UK was 44th in the world in terms of the proportion of female representatives it had in Parliament. Rwanda topped the table with 58% of its parliamentarians being women. It had a minimum quota of 30%, which was a demonstration that quotas could give encouragement and bring about progress.

38

In the UK the devolved administrations were doing better than either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. In Wales, half of its parliamentarians were women; in Scotland a third. In the House of Commons, women represented just under 20% of MPs. The proportion of women in the House of Lords was similar, despite the fact that the House of Lords was an appointed, rather than an elected House. The women who were in the House of Lords were, however, extremely active and there were many of them on the front benches.

Baroness Young went on to discuss the mechanisms through which greater gender equality might be achieved:

One mechanism that could be used was equality rhetoric, whereby the power of words was used to draw women into the system and welcome them once they had arrived.

Another mechanism was equality promotion, which involved the fast-tracking and training of particular under-represented groups of people.

Baroness Young commented that twinning had been used successfully in Scotland. This involved local parties selecting a woman for every man on the shortlist for candidature. Historically politics relied upon social networks. Since many of these networks were traditionally male-dominated, it was easy to see how women could be excluded.

A very controversial mechanism in the UK was the use of all-female shortlists of candidates. Prior to the turn of the century such shortlists would have been illegal because they represented a means of positive discrimination. Now, however, legislation ensured that political parties were allowed to practise positive discrimination of this kind.

Baroness Young noted that the UK had a raft of equality legislation and that the Equality Acts had seen some success. There was an Equality Bill currently before the House of Lords which attempted to consolidate existing equality legislation and stretch it a bit further, for example to improve the representation of disabled people.

Some people tended to be disparaging about female involvement in politics, thinking that it would all be about nappies and shopping. This was disproved by those women currently successful in politics. The current Attorney General, for example, was both the first woman and the first black person to take on the role. Baroness Young believed that women did have a particularly good insight into issues such as childcare and caring for the elderly, but that this was not cause to dismiss women from public life. Instead, it was necessary for men to grasp the importance of these issues to society as a whole and to tackle them themselves.

Baroness Young thought that there should be a ladder of opportunity for women in politics. However, it was very important that those who had already climbed the ladder did not pull it up after themselves. The ladder had to start with children and young people, who needed to be encouraged right from the outset. Only when this happened would women be encouraged up the ladder and could the world be changed.

39

Baroness Falkner thanked Baroness Young and introduced Ashok Viswanathan. He was a founder director of Operation Black Vote, which had been established just before the landslide Labour victory in 1997. Amongst other roles, Mr Viswanathan sat on the Council of Charter 88, which had been established to address the problems of the first past the post system.

Mr Ashok Viswanathan said that he was Deputy Director of Operation Black Vote, a Non-Governmental Organisation that was operational in the UK. Both his parents had come from the Tamil Nadu in South India and migrated to the UK in the early 1970s. He himself had been born in the UK, in East London.

One of the remarkable aspects of being born inside the UK was that, unlike many of the delegates, Mr Viswanathan had never experienced firsthand the idea that democracy was about a competition between freedom and death. He had been born with the democratic right to vote and to form political parties. Because all British people were born with these rights sometimes they became complacent about them.

Mr Viswanathan said that in the UK 2005 General Election, the turnout had only been 61%. Amongst black and other ethnic minority communities this figure was closer to 45%. This represented a significant democratic deficit. One in four people from these communities was not registered to vote and, of the 75% who were registered, less than half actually voted.

Out of 646 MPs in the House of Commons only 15 were from black or other ethnic minority communities. This was 2.1% of the total, compared to an expected total of 12% of the general population at the 2011 census. Thus the number of black and other ethnic minority MPs stood at a fifth of what it should be if the House of Commons were to look like the community that it served. The figure only improved if one took into account the cleaners and cooks working in the House of Commons. There was a long way to go before Parliament became modern and vibrant.

Mr Viswanathan said that young people consistently stated that they would become more engaged in politics if they saw some black faces in high places. Institutions needed to reflect the population that they served or there would be a decline in participation rates as people became more cynical.

The average age of a UK MP was 55 and two thirds of them had been to an “Ivy League” university. They were mostly professional people. Whilst professional people were necessary, it would be good to see people from all walks of life represented in Parliament.

It was the aim of Operation Black Vote to see a younger, more female, more ethnically diverse group of MPs. However, since the arrival of 100 new female MPs in 1997, the situation had got worse rather than better. The UK could learn from other parliaments how best to address this deficit. Without taking positive steps, meritocracy would take another 100 years to achieve improved diversity in politics.

Baroness Falkner thanked the speakers for their contributions and invited questions from the floor.

40

Hon. Peter Nyombi MP (Uganda) said that in Uganda a policy of affirmative action was pursued to ensure the representation of women and disabled people. This alone was not enough and, amongst other measures, Uganda needed to provide a better education for its women.

Hon. Emilia Monjowa Lifaka MP (Cameroon) said that it was not sufficient just to discuss the inclusion of women. Women had to be financially empowered as well. She compared attempting to prepare women for an election two months beforehand to trying to fatten a chicken on the day that it was due to go to market. The process needed to start five years before an election. Women also needed to be encouraged to escape their own personal inhibitions.

Hon Kwabena Darko-Mensah MP (Ghana) said that he had read the literature from Rwanda and asked himself whether or not it could be used as a yardstick to minimise corruption in Africa. Boys and girls needed to be socialised and well educated from the start. In Ghana women simply were not presenting themselves for election. He asked how this could be addressed.

Mr Viswanathan said that Operation Black Vote advocated positive action in the UK. It advocated all-black shortlists in certain areas, particularly in winnable seats. All too frequently black candidates were put forward in unwinnable seats, which improved party statistics but changed nothing. Black candidates should not just be selected in predominantly black areas.

There were approximately 100 UK constituencies where the black vote could win or lose a seat, and people in these constituencies needed to be encouraged to lobby political parties to present more candidates from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Baroness Young said that it was necessary to consider what was meant by “representation”. It did not just mean electing a few women to power; it meant preparing girls from a very early age for the possibility of public life.

Mr Cedrick Thomas Frolick MP (South Africa) said that diversity was about opening democracy up to minority groups at all levels, and that such a project required constant attention. He asked what efforts were being made by major political parties in the UK at grass-roots level.

Smt. Veljibhai Jat Poonamben MP (India) said that it was a bit sad that, even in the UK, there were still difficulties in achieving diversity. She asked what developing countries were supposed to do when even developed countries had failed to get it right.

Hon. Abraham Browne MP (Dominica) said that Dominica had a population of 70,000 and had had a female Prime Minister for 15 years. Baroness Scotland had been born there. He asked what practical steps could be taken to ensure the registration of the disenfranchised.

Baroness Young said that there was no strict correlation between the extent to which a country was developed, and its success in achieving diversity, although it was true

41

that in very traditional countries, overcoming the hurdles to equality required much harder work.

Mr Viswanathan said that he had engaged in a robust debate with the High Commissioner from Papua New Guinea, who was a strong advocate of compulsory voting. He believed this to be a short-term solution to a problem which really required deep cultural and political change. This could only be achieved through education.

Operation Black Vote had run mentoring schemes for young people and had seen a pool of talent recruited and retained through this activity. So far the scheme had ensured the recruitment of 50 magistrates from ethnic minority backgrounds. Five people who had participated in parliamentary mentoring schemes had become prospective parliamentary candidates at the last General Election in the UK.

Rt Hon. Rebecca Kadaga MP (Uganda) said that the UK could learn a great deal from Africa and asked why the UK was not fully compliant with human rights instruments relating to the equality of women.

Hon Ahmed Ibrahim MP (Ghana) said that women were not coming forward to represent themselves in Ghana despite a quota system.

Dr Tariq Fazal Chaudhry MNA (Pakistan) said that, in Pakistan, women could be elected but there were also seats reserved for women selected by the main political parties. Life was hard for MPs in Pakistan, who were expected to attend all the weddings and funerals of their constituents. Perhaps this put women off.

Baroness Falkner said that change had tended to occur in countries under authoritarian leadership. This was something of a paradox,

Hon. Beatrice Rwakimari MP (Uganda) said that it was good to see black women represented in the House of Lords. She raised the issue of xenophobia, citing the example of Uganda, where minority communities wanted to take on leadership positions, causing resentment amongst indigenous populations. She asked what steps were being taken to prepare the indigenous British population for a larger number of people from minority communities taking positions power.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) said that it appeared that Asia was leading the way in terms of the parliamentary representation of women. In Bangladesh for the past five terms all the Prime Ministers and opposition leaders had been women.

Mrs Kate Kamba MP (East African Legislative Assembly) said that political parties were usually headed by men. As candidates were usually elected on the basis of party lists, women needed to be promoted within political parties.

Miss Cynthia Y Forde MP (Barbados) said that a quota system would not work in Barbados. Traditionally there women had been seen as cooks and supporters waving placards. Often women in politics faced the greatest opposition from other women. They also had to face men slinging mud, and perhaps this did not appeal very much.

42

Change could only be generated through education and initiatives such as Youth Parliaments.

Baroness Young said that it had been heartening to hear of the effort being made across the Commonwealth to promote equality. There was still a great deal of work to be done but countries could learn from each other. No country was perfect.

Mr Viswanathan said that the two women in the Cabinet were not from the elected chamber.

He said that the comment on xenophobia was a good illustration of the reasons why he did not only want to see black MPs in predominantly black areas. If they represented overwhelmingly white areas it would reassure those communities that democracy was about MPs representing everyone, not just their own immediate community.

Baroness Falkner remarked that the House of Lords was not wholly unaccountable.

She observed that she was from a triple minority, coming from Pakistan, being a Muslim and being female.

She believed that society had to grow its leaders by bringing them in when they were young. Everyone had to speak in the same vernacular because if people only spoke to their own communities they would not win. In the US, Barak Obama had won the Presidency by appealing to all Americans, not just black Americans.

She thanked the speakers for their contributions.

43

Session 3 - DELEGATES FORUM – ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC LIFE

Chairman: Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore)

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) thanked the delegates for electing her to chair the session. She noted that a key theme that had emerged from discussions thus far had been whether malfunctions or distortions of political systems were a failure of the systems themselves, or a failure of leadership. This was very pertinent for the topic to be discussed in this session, namely how to ensure high standards of ethics and accountability in public life. She believed that the vigorous system of checks and balances in place in Singapore had helped to ensure that candidates were free of corruption and contributed to the relatively high levels of trust between politicians and the public highlighted by Transparency International. She posed a number of related questions to be addressed: specifically, how to establish a system that facilitated the emergence of good leaders; and who was responsible for upholding high standards amongst parliamentarians.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) referred to an earlier statement that parliaments should reflect society, but noted that society contained both strengths and weaknesses. The role of government should be to build on those strengths and put in place mechanisms which prevented the reflection of weaknesses. He drew attention to the Integrity Commissions in place at state and federal level in Australia; for example, he was a member of the Commission that oversaw the work of the Commissioner for integrity in law enforcement. He advocated the supremacy of parliaments in ensuring that public servants operate under the rule of law.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) asked who supervised the parliamentarians under such a system.

Hon. Nisar Ahmed Khuhro (Pakistan – Sindh) said that true accountability involved a full-time parliament with elections held every four or five years, allowing the public to judge their representatives. It was the role of politicians to address the weaknesses in society.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) asked why the public now had less trust in their politicians, if that was the case.

Hon. Emilia Monjowa Lifaka MP (Cameroon) said that it was the constitutional obligation of MPs to legislate and oversee government action. Good laws were important, but in her view, not as important as good judges.

Sri Vijay Inder Singla MP (India) considered that trust in politicians was eroded when they did not fulfil their electoral promises, particularly as the public only had the opportunity to hold their representatives to account every four or five years.

Hon. Matthew Nyuma MP (Sierra Leone) said that it was important to involve constituents in the decision-making process and to carry out their mandate.

44

Hon. Mohamed Abdikadir MP (Kenya) believed that the views expressed by other delegates were unrealistic. Politics was about winning, therefore politicians were bound to act selfishly. He also drew attention to the role of the lobbying industry.

Hon. Trusty Gina MP (Swaziland) said that the public should be responsible for holding parliamentarians to account but parliament should set the standard. She noted that in her country, politicians did buy votes.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) asked if responsibility lay with anyone other than parliament or the public.

Mr Stuart Farrow MP (South Africa) said that without a meaningful opposition party, there could be no real system of checks and balances.

Hon. Michel Marie MNA (Seychelles) emphasised the need for strong institutions and in particular a strong media.

Hon. Theo Diergaardt MP (Namibia) said that parties were responsible through their manifestos.

Smt. Veljibhai Jat Poonamben MP (India) considered that each parliamentarian should take responsibility for him or herself.

Hon. Lolesia Bukwimba MP (Tanzania) said that with an effective judicial system, it was very easy to keep parliament in check as judges were able to rule a law as unconstitutional if this was the case.

Hon. Alfreda Mwamba MP (Zambia) said that civil society played an important role in her country in holding politicians to account.

Dr Tariq Fazal Chaudhury MNA (Pakistan) said that the public looked up to politicians and so this should affect the way in which they behaved. It was also important for states to spend money on elections and restrict the amount that could be spent by individual candidates, to ensure that parliamentary office was not restricted to the rich.

Hon. Beatrice Rwakimari MP (Uganda) said that MPs were not above the law.

Mr Teburoro Tito MP (Kiribati) said that the electorate must hold politicians to account. All the mechanisms for doing so, such as the courts, belonged to the people.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) suggested that the delegates take a vote on which of the mechanisms discussed was the most important in ensuring the integrity of parliamentarians.

Hon. Paul Tse Wai-chun MP (Hong Kong) asked if “parliament” included the system of checks and balances placed on MPs.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) agreed that it did.

45

Muhammad Iqbal Khan Rana MPL (Pakistan – Punjab) asked for clarification of the difference between “strong opposition” and “parliament”.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) clarified that “parliament” referred to the institution and its rules whereas “strong opposition” meant the existence of opposition parties.

There was some discussion about whether or not “electorate” and “civil society” should constitute separate categories but eventually it was agreed that they should.

The results of the vote were as follows:

Electorate – 13 votes Processes and judiciary – 9 votes Parliament – 8 votes Self-check – 8 votes Independent media – 1 vote Strong opposition – 1 vote Civil society – 1 vote

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) asked why six delegates had abstained from voting.

Hon. Mary Rutamwebwa Mugyenyi PAP (Pan-African Parliament) responded that she was unable to designate one of the categories as the most important because she believed that responsibility was shared. She considered that other parliaments should follow the example of the UK Parliament in setting up a separate body to ensure standards are adhered to.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) said that she believed this process had shown that systems of accountability could be very confusing to outsiders, demonstrating the need for clearly-articulated codes of ethics. Their voting process had also shown that parliamentarians could take responsibility for holding their peers to account, although this only worked if the system was clean from the beginning. She proposed that the delegates discussed each of the top four categories in more detail, starting with the electorate.

Hon. Langat Magerer MP (Kenya) said that parliaments should initiate the processes by which the electorate could hold parliamentarians to account, but the electorate should have the final say.

Hon. Trusty Gina MP (Swaziland) stated that laws were enacted in parliament, therefore the process began with parliament.

Hon. Rethabile Marumo MP (Lesotho) disagreed that responsibility should lie with the electorate because the electorate were vulnerable in countries where it was possible to buy their votes.

46

Mr Stuart Farrow MP (South Africa) drew attention to South Africa’s Electoral Commission, as a means of monitoring elections to ensure they were free and fair. Such a commission should be independent, and elections held sufficiently frequently.

Hon. Halima James Mdee MP (Tanzania) said that in countries such as Tanzania, where education standards were low, it was easy for parliamentary candidates to buy votes. Civil education was therefore very important.

Mr Nawab Abdul Ghani Talpur MNA (Pakistan) stated that it was impossible for parliament as an institution to ensure the integrity of all politicians. Each parliamentarian had a personal responsibility not to buy votes. Parliaments could ensure that the public had access to information.

Hon. Emilia Monjowa Lifaka MP (Cameroon) argued that buying someone a drink or some food was not the same as buying their vote and that it was unfair to their electorates to imply that this was the case.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) asked what tools were needed to empower the electorate.

Hon. Trish White (South Australia) emphasised the importance of access: to parliament and to parliamentary systems. She cited the ability to petition parliament and the practice of state cabinets in Australia of holding their meetings in community settings.

Hon. David Osbourne MP (Montserrat) highlighted the importance of education.

Mrs Kate Kamba MP (East African Legislative Assembly) said that things had changed greatly in the years since she had first joined parliament in 1980. She noted that this year the parliament had decided to increase the size of the electorate to make it more difficult for corrupt individuals to be elected.

Hon. Francis Kaboneka MP (Rwanda) considered that parliamentarians should consult their electorate before making legislation, to ensure they had a say in all laws.

Hon. Michel Marie MNA (Seychelles) said that parliaments should be open to the media, as in the UK, to facilitate the flow of information to the electorate. He cited the online publication of MPs’ expense claims as an example of good practice.

Hon. Paul Tse Wai-chun MP (Hong Kong) said that the electorate ultimately held parliamentarians to account, but both the gap between elections and the need for information must be borne in mind in terms of their ability to do this effectively. In order to avoid conflicts of interest, parliamentarians should be required to disclose their assets and interests, and systems should be put in place to ensure that those who fell below the required standards faced appropriate consequences.

Delegates from Pakistan emphasised the need for what they defined as a “strong, uninterrupted, democratic system”.

47

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) noted the need to ensure that all of these features were integrated into delegates’ political systems. She asked for delegates’ views on the judiciary.

Hon. Kwabena Darko-Mensah MP (Ghana) said that parliaments should make very specific laws so that judges could implement them in an unbiased manner.

Hon. Alfreda Mwamba MP (Zambia) stressed the need for an impartial judiciary.

Mrs Kate Kamba MP (East African Legislative Assembly) said that the processes by which public figures were nominated should be made more difficult to keep out corrupt individuals.

Mr Md. Monomwar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) considered that independent judicial commissions should be set up.

Hon. Rosemarie Hilda Husbands-Mathurin MP (St Lucia) said that the problem with judicial regulation of parliamentarians was who would regulate the judiciary.

Mr Stuart Farrow MP (South Africa) said that the system of checks and balances should include financial auditing and drew attention to South Africa’s Chapter 9 institutions. The key was to legislate to ensure that such institutions were independent.

A Kenyan representative argued that the judiciary should also be properly financed and facilitated.

Mr Teburoro Tito MP (Kiribati) disagreed with an earlier comment that it was difficult for judges to monitor parliamentarians: they could if a law was passed which mandated them to do so.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) suggested the delegates discussed self-regulation. The World Economic Forum had been discussing the view that parliament could not be held entirely to account for what happened in a country considering the role played by the corporate and NGO sectors. Those who led any of these sectors also had a responsibility that went beyond enriching themselves. The Forum was proposing a Global Pact for Leaders.

Smt. Veljibhai Jat Poonamben MP (India) considered that they all had a personal accountability to their constituents and the knowledge that they would eventually have to face the consequences should guide them away from corruption.

Hon. Francis Kaboneka MP (Rwanda) drew attention to the leadership code of conduct in Rwanda, by which parliamentarians had to declare their interests every year. Rwandan parliamentarians were also prohibited from doing other kinds of work.

By a show of hands, it was indicated that almost all parliamentarians present had been required to declare their wealth on entering parliament bar those from Kiribati, Malaysia and Montserrat (although a Bill to require this was currently being debated in the Montserrat Parliament).

48

The majority of delegates had to declare their wealth on an annual basis, although Hong Kong, Brunei, India, Ghana, Sierra Leone and Swaziland did not have this requirement.

In approximately half of the states represented these declarations were made public.

Mr Stuart Farrow MP (South Africa) said that an ethics committee which looked into the conduct of members and had disciplinary powers to recommend their suspension was another useful tool.

Hon. David Osbourne MP (Montserrat) noted that in Montserrat parliamentarians were banned from having ties to any company that was doing business with the Government, as a means to prevent corruption.

Hon. Ahmed Ibrahim MP (Ghana) explained some of the factors inhibiting the operation of the Integrity Commission in Ghana. The Commission was reliant on the general public to report suspected misbehaviour to it but then there was the problem of finding proof.

Delegates thanked Miss Penny Low MP for her chairmanship of the session.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) summarised that being a parliamentarian was becoming more difficult because the public were placing more and more demands upon them, partly though their increasing use of information technology. It was important that parliamentarians supported each other through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

49

Session 4 - ELECTIONS and ELECTORAL SYSTEMS

Speakers: Mr Keith Best, Electoral Reform International Services (ERIS) Mr Mark Stevens, Commonwealth Secretariat

Chairman: Mr Elfyn Llwyd MP

Mr Elfyn Llwyd MP welcomed the speakers and introduced them to the delegates. He gave a brief overview of the different electoral systems that existed in the United Kingdom: the First-Past-The-Post system used to elect Members of Parliament to the House of Commons; the Supplementary Vote system used to elect the Mayor of London; the Additional Member System, which is used to elect members of the National Assembly of Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the London Assembly; and the Single Transferable Vote used in Northern Ireland and for local government elections in Scotland.

Mr Keith Best, Chair, Electoral Reform International Services (ERIS), explained that ERIS was a UK-based not-for-profit democracy assistance and advice organisation. It arranged technical assistance; trained, recruited and managed election observers; and organised various democracy support activities. It had 400 democracy experts and had worked in 70 countries. Its parent body was the Electoral Reform Society, which had a mandate to promote the Single Transferable Vote. ERIS did not promote one electoral system as opposed to another.

Mr Best gave a comparison of different electoral systems. The First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system had come in for a great deal of criticism: the clearest recent example of the unfairness of the system had occurred in Lesotho where the opposition secured 25% of the vote but only two of the ninety seats in the parliament. The 2005 General Election in the UK had seen the Labour Party win a majority of seats, but with a lower percentage of the vote then any previous majority government in the UK. Five different electoral systems were in use in Britain, and Mr Best commented that there had been much criticism of the FPTP system used for Westminster elections.

An alternative electoral system was Proportional Representation, where a proportion of seats gained by a particular political party corresponded to the proportion of the overall vote actually cast for that party. It was argued that proportional systems tended to benefit women candidates. Advocates for FPTP argued that proportional representation created instability in the overall political system and was too favourable to smaller parties e.g. the BNP had 2 Members of the European Parliament elected under this system.

Mr Best highlighted that one of the areas in which ERIS worked was that of election observation. It had arrangements with the British Foreign Office under which it selected the UK participants in European Union election observation missions and, with another two NGOs, shared in the selection of UK participants in OSCE election observation missions, which it then managed. In recent years, those who observed elections had benefited greatly from the adoption in 2005 at the United Nations of a Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation and the associated Code of Conduct. ERIS had participated in drawing up the Declaration.

50

Mr Best said that challenges still remained. One was the effectiveness of follow-up after election observation. Often election observers returned to countries and reported back the same recommendations as so little had changed since the last election they observed. He commented that organisations which sponsored election observation needed to be more focused on ways of picking up and promoting observer group recommendations. He advocated follow up visits.

Mr Best also stated the need for observation of the key stages of the electoral process prior to the election day itself. Often within an electoral cycle of four of five years, election observers focused on the end of the election campaign, the election day itself and the results process. Mr Best said that there was a need for observation to take place at periodic intervals along the electoral cycle. He also spoke of the need for international election observers to give way to professional and efficient domestic election observer bodies, but was unsure if this would lend credibility to the process.

Mr Best applauded the work of international organisations in improving the democratic process, for example, the UK, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the European Union, the OSCE and non-governmental organisations. ERIS wanted to work more closely with civil society bodies to enable them to promote democracy in their own country. There was a need to assist political parties so that they were internally democratic and financially transparent.

Mr Mark Stevens, Head of the Democracy System, Commonwealth Secretariat, explained that the Commonwealth Secretariat existed to facilitate support to Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth was an intergovernmental organisation of fifty-three independent states which co-operated within a framework of common values and goals as outlined in the Singapore Declaration of 1971. The Harare Commonwealth Declaration of 1991 set out the Commonwealth’s core principles and values. This was reinforced every two years at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

The members had a combined population of 2.1 billion, and were made up of many faiths and nationalities. The Commonwealth did not espouse a single model of governance, but its values and principles were aspirational. In recent years, the Commonwealth had suspended several members for ‘serious or persistent violations’ of the Harare Declaration, particularly in abrogating their responsibility to have democratic government. Recent examples of suspension included Nigeria, Pakistan and Fiji. A recent democracy index classified half of its members as flawed, hybrid or authoritarian regimes.

Commonwealth Observer Groups were composed of eminent and highly experienced Commonwealth citizens drawn from countries familiar with democratic processes and institutions. They were constituted by, but were independent of, the Commonwealth Secretary-General and Commonwealth governments; their members participated in their individual capacities and their loyalty was to the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth.

Mr Stevens listed the key challenges of the election process. Often elections went wrong due to the bad political will of the persons holding power, which existed as a result of a ‘winner takes all’ mentality. Often there was too much at stake to risk

51

losing power in an election. Abuse of position by the incumbent was frequent, due to the sheer resources they had available at their disposal.

Often problems arose during the electoral process due to the polarisation of the political environment, where the opposition was marginalised. Mr Stevens commented that there was a need to make the opposition valuable and to bring them into the process. Problems were also caused if there were a lack of credible and independent institutions in an election; for example, tensions were often caused by a lack of trust in the judiciary. Mr Stevens also noted the problems caused by the weak nature of political parties, which could become a vehicle for an individual; or if freedom of association was not catered for. Two final reasons for tensions during an election were voter registration; and the electoral system in place.

Mr Elfyn Llwyd MP thanked the speakers and invited questions from the delegates.

Hon. Trusty Gina MP (Swaziland) asked why the international community were selective in observing elections. She further asked why representatives from Africa were not asked to observe elections taking place in Western countries.

Mr Mark Stevens said that the number of elections observed were determined by resources. International organisations were only able to observe 3 or 4 elections a year.

Mr Keith Best noted that no country could be complacent about the validity of its electoral system, and cited the problems Britain had had with postal voting, and that every country should have an election observer team. He noted that resources played a role in deciding which elections an organisation observed. He agreed that representatives from Africa should observe elections in Europe and there was the need to share best practice.

Mr Elfyn Llwyd MP agreed that election observation should be a two-way process between continents.

Hon Kipronoh Magerer Langat MP (Kenya) asked if IT [Information Technology] was considered a useful tool in managing elections. He also wondered if it was best to hold elections simultaneously i.e. local and national elections, or if they should be staggered.

Mr Mark Stevens urged caution in using IT systems in elections. He acknowledged that they had been a great tool in the 2008 elections in Bangladesh, with the use of a UN-funded digital electoral roll. However he argued that, where there was a lack of confidence in a country, the use of IT could increase a lack of transparency in an election. Electronic Voting Machines used in Indian General and State elections had been introduced over a period of years, so that if any error occurred, it would not be seen as political malfunction, but simply an error with the IT system. There was a need for confidence and transparency from an election.

He noted that multi-elections could be complex. Nonetheless it was favourable to hold them on the same day, as it could be expensive to hold them on different days.

52

Mr Keith Best said that where an IT system could be properly verified, then it was a useful tool for registration. However he was cautious about using IT for the act of voting, as it would be difficult to verify who had voted. Biometrics was one method that could be used, and was currently used by government to track migration patterns, but the underlying question was whether the system would ever be secure enough.

He agreed that it was better to have elections on the same day. Often government did not want to run the risk of doing poorly in local elections, and then returning to the polls soon after for a national election. It would also not be possible to guarantee a consistent turnout if elections were held on different days.

Hon. Trish White MP (Australia – South Australia) asked if there should be a separation between a body that conducted elections and the regulatory body.

Mr Keith Best MP said that there was a need for transparency in both. The Electoral Commission had been told that it should have political representation on its board, which he strongly disagreed with, as it should be a fearless body able to provide independent advice to Government.

Mr Kelvin Davis MP (New Zealand) asked for clarification from Mr Keith Best about the effects of a closed list.

Mr Keith Best stated that in an open list, an electorate could give their preference to a particular candidate. In a closed party list, voters could only effectively vote for the political party as a whole and thus have no influence on the party-determined order in which candidates were elected. The candidates positioned highest on this list tended to get a seat in the parliament, while the candidates positioned very low on the closed list would not.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) highlighted the improvements made to the election process in Bangladesh in December 2008: there were no party lists; an individual’s voting right could not be given to another person; transparent ballot boxes were used (in the past, ballot boxed had been filled before the election); and law enforcement agencies were deployed thereby reducing law and order incidents.

Hon. Abraham Browne MP (Dominica) asked if the Commonwealth Secretariat was invited by the government or the election management body to observe elections.

Mr Mark Stevens replied that Commonwealth Observer Groups were only ever sent at the invitation of the Government or the election management body. However, an Assessment Mission was sent beforehand to ensure that the required support of political parties and civil society was forthcoming.

Hon. Beatrice Rwakimari MP (Uganda) asked whether, with high levels of poverty in countries, and malpractice and corruption occurring during elections, an election was the best way of choosing a country’s leader.

Mr Keith Best acknowledged that it could be a flawed system, and that pure democracy could lead to tyranny. In any sophisticated system, minority rights had to

53 be safeguarded. As Chair of the Executive Committee of the World Federalist Movement, he felt that a federal system was a way of safeguarding minority rights. In a devolved structure, it was possible to get a different governing body in one part of the country from its Parliament, which could create a healthy tension. Democracy was the best system, as long as there were safeguards.

Hon. Paul Tse Wai-chun MP (Hong-Kong) noted that the majority of electoral systems were based on electoral boundaries. He asked if there was an alternative, such as a system based on people’s occupation.

Mr Keith Best looked at the history of the Indian sub-continent. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Pakistan's founder, had not originally wanted a partition of India, but had wanted an unified country with safeguards for Muslims in India. He had wanted separate elections for Muslims.

Mr Nawab Abdul Ghani Talpur MP (Pakistan) asked why the view of elections in Pakistan were so negative.

Mr Keith Best replied that the media played a big role in this. The media was wholly unaccountable, and in many cases, publications were owned by media barons who put their own spin on things.

54

Session 5 - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Speakers: Mr Bob Castle, Parliamentary Freedom of Information Officer Mr Norman Baker MP

Chairman: Gordon Prentice MP

Gordon Prentice MP welcomed the speakers and introduced them to the delegates. He noted his own interest in issues surrounding Freedom of Information and data protection, particularly given topical concerns such as DNA databases and MPs’ expenses.

Mr Bob Castle explained that he would be discussing the more technical aspects of Freedom of Information legislation and the application of the Data Protection Act; his key concern was the need to balance parliamentary privilege with the public’s right to access information.

Mr Castle believed that there were three key issues surrounding FOI: the importance of information; the rights and obligations associated with information; and the potential for conflict with the historic right of Parliament to control publication of its proceedings. He cited the comments of Michael Wills MP in 2008, then Minister responsible for FOI, that public access to information was at the heart of the constitutional reform agenda, presenting an opportunity for the public to challenge those in authority. He believed that public bodies were custodians, rather than owners of information, but recognised that there was a balance to be met, and that there were occasions when the public interest was best served by secrecy.

He explained that parliamentary privilege was a principle of constitutional law dating back to the 17th Century, deriving from Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689. This principle allowed Parliament to work effectively and independently, without interference from the courts or other authorities, and protected the notion of exclusive cognisance; the right of each house of Parliament to control its own affairs. Privilege protected MPs and other individuals participating in parliamentary proceedings (such as motions and debates, parliamentary questions and select committee evidence sessions) and ensured freedom of speech within Parliament, so that individuals could not be sued or prosecuted as a result of something they said. In relation to FOI, Mr Castle believed that the key point would generally be that, as part of its privilege, the relevant House had the right to control publication of its proceedings.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 came into force at the beginning of 2005 and dealt with access to information held by a public authority, while parallel regulations dealt with environmental information. Its key objectives were to ensure: greater transparency and openness; greater accountability; better quality government decisions; better public understanding of decisions; greater participation; and increased trust and confidence.

Mr Castle noted that around 83 countries worldwide had similar legislation ensuring access to information, and that further countries were in the process of implementing

55

such laws. In some countries, like the UK, FOI regulations applied to legislatures, but most did not.

In the UK the Act provided individuals or organisations with the right to request information held by a public authority by letter or email. The Act was fully retrospective and applied to all information, not just information filed since the Act came into force. The public had two key rights in relation to FOI: the public authority had to tell the applicant whether it holds the information, and should normally supply it within 20 working days, in the format requested. Both rights were enforceable by the Information Commissioner, Information Tribunal and the Courts. Each public authority had to have a publication scheme detailing information routinely published. Both Houses of Parliament had comprehensive publication schemes covering various parliamentary papers, such as library research papers, details of expenses, and financial accounts and contracts.

He believed that there was a public perception that the House had been “tight-lipped” regarding the release of information, and suggested that this was perhaps justified in relation to expenses. However, he noted that over 700 FOI requests had been logged since January 2009 and that the House of Commons Information Office dealt with thousands of questions about the work of the Parliament each year.

Mr Castle explained that the Act identified certain exemptions to the two rights, where harm or prejudice might arise from disclosure of information; for example over matters of national security, or in relation to personal data or legal advice. There were also two exemptions which applied specifically to information held by Parliament; where there was a risk of prejudice to the conduct of public affairs; and in relation to parliamentary privilege. In the latter case, the Act provided a strong exemption to the right of access if it were necessary to avoid an infringement of parliamentary privilege. Disclosure by any other public authority of any information relating to parliamentary proceedings could also be protected by the exemption. A certificate signed by the Speaker (or Clerk of the Parliaments in the House of Lords) could certify that the exemption was required in order to prevent an infringement of privilege in a particular case. This certificate could not be challenged in the Courts and would mean that the Information Commissioner and Information Tribunal had no jurisdiction. Examples of documents which could trigger such an exemption were unpublished committee reports and drafts, written evidence to committees, internal papers prepared by the officials of either House directly relating to House or committee proceedings (eg briefing papers or notes of committee meetings), and correspondence between members, House officials, ministers and government officials directly relating to House or committee proceedings.

Gordon Prentice MP thanked Mr Castle and introduced the next speaker, Mr Norman Baker.

Mr Norman Baker MP told delegates that he had been the Liberal Democrat MP for a constituency on the south coast for 12 years. While he acted as the Lib Dem Shadow Spokesperson for transport, he had had no directly relevant role in relation to FOI.

He noted the words of President Nixon in 1972 that “when information which properly belongs to the public is systematically withheld by those in power, the

56

people soon become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who manage them, and eventually incapable of determining their own destinies”. He also repeated the words of President Woodrow Wilson: “Government ought to be all outside and no inside”. Mr Baker said that FOI was critical to the operation of good governance and proper democracy. He believed that the public had the right to find out those things the Government would not want seen. He noted that he himself had used Parliamentary Questions to find out information in relation to the nuclear industry, with the result that some problems had been dealt with. He compared this to events in Chernobyl in the Soviet Union, whose citizens had no rights to freedom of information.

Mr Baker told the delegates that before the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the assumption had been that information was secret if there was no reason to make it public. This assumption had now been reversed; a very important turnaround. Under the Public Records Act 1967, the public had the right to see papers after 30 years, unless the papers were deemed sensitive or still in use. He noted that the Observer had published a list of documents of which, under the 1967 Act, the public had access to the titles, but not the documents themselves. Examples included documents such as “Taxi drivers carrying fares without depressing flag” and “The bombing of Dresden, 1945”. The FOI Act 2000 allowed the public access to embarrassing information, which had the effect of making the Government think twice before acting in the same way again.

He noted that in relation to Members expenses, he had been one of the first to ask questions – in his case with regard to the types of transport being paid for. Mr Baker’s question had been initially rejected by the House of Commons Commission, but fast tracked through the information tribunal process by the ICC as a test case. Two years later he won. In the words of George Orwell, “information is power”.

Mr Baker stated that politicians often made comments supporting FOI, but were more reluctant when it came to their own information. He believed that the recent controversy around expenses proved that the system worked and that democracy would be stronger as a result; the 2000 Act had been a success. He suggested that not all that should be released was actually being released; around 30,000 requests being made to government departments every year and many answers were withheld because of the exemptions in relation to national security or privilege. He believed that these exemptions were sometimes convenient excuses and that there was no real way of knowing whether they were being applied appropriately or not. However, he thought that overall the legislation helped the balance between who had information and who did not to be redressed.

Mr Baker acknowledged that the FOI legislation had helped the media, of whose use of the legislation there were some valid criticisms; the media were not perfect and had their own agenda. However, the diversity of the press provided an opportunity for FOI to be used to great effect.

He suggested that there was an interesting challenge to be met in relation to reconciling the FOI Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998. There was a conflict between the notion of personal data being divulged only to the individual, and the desire to make as much information public as possible. He believed that in relation to

57

MPs expenses, a logical resolution had been found in which details of expenditure on items such as food were released, while personal information such as addresses had not. He recognised that the FOI Act was not perfect; it needed strengthening in some areas, and it was open to some abuses. For example he thought that while the Information Commissioner’s Office was excellent, it was under resourced and understaffed. Nevertheless, FOI represented a big change, but one which was necessary for proper democracy.

Gordon Prentice MP thanked the speakers. He said that FOI represented a significant culture change in the UK. He noted that the MPs’ expenses story had stayed on the front page of the Telegraph for a month. He said that he had recently asked a Parliamentary Question about the number of outstanding FOI requests still to be dealt with by the Information Commissioner. The answer had been that there were half a million outstanding requests since 2005. He suggested that if delays in getting responses were seen to be too long, the public would conclude that FOI legislation was not working. It was very important that the delays were not seen to be unreasonable, as this would undermine the Act.

Mrs Leanne Rowat MLA (Canada) said that Canada had had FOI laws since 1998 and an Adjudicator for disputes since 2005 and noted that Canada had a 30 day turnaround law which, if not met, could lead to an appeal to the Ombudsman. She asked whether the UK attached a fee to FOI requests, as happens in Canada in some cases.

Hon Trish White MP (South Australia) explained that in South Australia FOI laws applied to local politicians, and while there was some protection under the law for personal information, this did not apply to information held about others. The current Speaker had determined that parliamentary privilege did not apply to documents being sought from MPs by lawyers relating to constituency work. She asked what the situation in the UK was in relation to this.

Mr Stuart Farrow MP (South Africa) said that South Africa also had FOI laws with a 30 day turnaround. He said that there was a backlog of requests and Commissioner had been appointed to deal with each application individually. He suggested that the public were jumping on the FOI bandwagon and asked if the system required tweaking and whether it was always in the public interest to release information.

Mr Norman Baker MP explained that there was a small charge applied in some cases in the UK, but that it was minimal. He had never been asked to pay himself and it was only where there would be a disproportionate cost to the holder of the information; 24 hours work in the case of central government, or 18 hours for any other organisation.

He said that in the UK there was a 20 day required turnaround for FOI requests, but that organisations could ask for extensions. If requests were turned down there could be a review by the Information Commissioner’s Office. If the Information Commissioner ruled that the information should be disclosed, and if the department still held back, the case could ultimately go to a tribunal. He thought that disclosure of information was almost always in the public interest. While Mr Baker accepted that there were sometime frivolous requests, he believed that the public nonetheless had

58

the right to ask them. He said that it was important to ensure that the Information Commissioner’s Office had enough staff to ensure that all requests could be dealt with efficiently.

Mr Bob Castle said that in the UK information held by MPs regarding individual constituents would not be subject to FOI laws; MPs and their offices were not considered public bodies as such, and subsequently were not covered by the Act.

Gordon Prentice MP felt that the disclosure of such information would be an intrusion and said that MPs in the UK would never hand over documents about constituents.

Mr Norman Baker MP noted that while MPs were not subject to FOI laws, they did have to abide by the Data Protection legislation regarding the holding of personal information.

Mr Bob Castle said that in relation to the 20 day turnaround, 86% of requests were answered within this period, although the information was not necessarily provided in every case.

Mr Teburoro Tito MP (Kiribati) said that Kiribati did not have any FOI laws, and that a logical approach was taken to the release of information. However, information about the government, minutes of Cabinet meetings, details of agreements with other countries and details of Ministerial loans from the government bank were not in the public domain. He asked if these documents should be made public under new FOI laws.

Hon. Abdul Halim Hussain (Malaysia – Penang) asked what recourse there was in the UK if MPs seemed to be using the argument of national security or public interest for withholding information.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) asked whether the speakers thought there were too many exceptions to the FOI laws.

Mr Norman Baker MP said that while it wasn’t his job to say what other countries should or shouldn’t do, he believed FOI legislation made countries better run. In relation to loans from government banks, he thought that ministers were entitled to secrecy over personal banking, although they should not be entitled to preferential interest rates. In relation to withholding information on the basis of public interest, he noted that such a veto had only been used on one occasion in the UK.

Mr Bob Castle said that FOI had to be balanced against data protection requirements, and noted that just because information was personal, that did not mean it could not be released in some circumstances.

59

THURSDAY 12TH NOVEMBER 09

Session 1 - THE ROLE OF THE OPPOSITION

Speaker: Rt Hon Michael Howard QC, Member of Parliament for Folkestone and Hythe and former Leader of the Opposition

Chairman: Lord Jones of Cheltenham

Convenor: Andrew Tuggey, Regional Secretary, CPA

Andrew Tuggey introduced the session’s Chair, Lord Jones of Cheltenham, and paid tribute to his work as a supporter of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

Lord Jones welcomed the delegates and introduced the speaker, Rt Hon Michael Howard QC.

Michael Howard began by referring to the high-minded ideals of constitutional theory in relation to the role of a parliamentary Opposition, and contrasting them with the one goal which had to dominate the mindset of every effective opposition: getting into Government.

The Opposition had two tasks, which were directly linked to this goal. The preconditions of an electoral win were an unpopular Government and a credible Opposition, so firstly, the Opposition had to do what it could to make the Government unpopular through criticism. Criticism should not be indiscriminate, however, lest the public stop paying attention; a sensible Opposition would not be afraid to agree when they felt the Government was acting in the best interests of the country. Secondly, the Opposition had to bolster its credibility by preparing both the policies and the electoral machine that could carry it into Government.

There was a popular perception in the United Kingdom that the Opposition’s main job was to participate in the “weekly joust” of Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons. Although the occasion provided the only guarantee of media exposure for the Leader of the Opposition, it was just one method of pursuing the two essential tasks.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) proposed a third major task for a party newly in Opposition: to try to unite the party in the wake of electoral defeat.

Hon. Nisar Ahmed Khuhro MP (Pakistan – Sindh) asked the speaker’s opinion on floor-crossing, which sometimes came about because of a need to bolster the majority.

Hon. Trusty Gina MP (Swaziland) pointed out that the influence of the Opposition was not limited to public criticism of the Government; in certain cases a right or power to call votes of no confidence in Ministers could be exercised.

Michael Howard said that, while motions of no confidence could be regarded as the Opposition’s ultimate sanction, they were not commonly successful because of the

60

majority required. On the subject of floor-crossing, he deplored the practice as a matter of principle, regarding it as a betrayal of party supporters who worked hard on the party’s behalf. However, his personal political hero was Winston Churchill, who crossed the floor more than once. Party unity could be as much a problem for a Government as it was for the Opposition, but maintaining unity might be more difficult for Opposition parties who did not have patronage to dispense in the form of ministerial and other roles.

Mr Cedrick Thomas Frolick MP (South Africa), asked how smaller Opposition parties could find expression, particularly where an electoral system of proportional representation had led to many smaller parties being represented in Parliament. Those Opposition members who chose to exert influence by agreeing to join the Government could find themselves ostracized.

Rt Hon. Rebecca Kadaga MP (Uganda) raised the issue of how an Opposition leader could exert control and discipline over members of their party.

Mr Stuart Farrow MP (South Africa) said that where many smaller parties were represented, and where proportional representation did not give members a specific constituency mandate, a Government could exert its much greater leverage to co-opt Opposition members. This negated the work done for the party at the grassroots level. A change in policy, however, was a legitimate reason to switch parties.

Michael Howard said that it was not always realistic for a small party to prepare for Government. It would be better in such a case to concentrate on establishing a distinctive position in the mind of the electorate, a niche from which to expand their profile. An Opposition leader had to convince his colleagues that unity was in their interests; a divided party would fail to establish credibility with the electorate and so had little chance of winning.

Hon Trish White MLA (Australia – South Australia) related a saying that a politician’s best day in Opposition would always rank a very long way behind their best day in Government. It must be the aim of an effective Opposition to win without proving themselves unworthy of winning; in other words, how to criticise a Government while maintaining a clean reputation themselves.

Hon. Mary Rutamwebwa Mugyenyi MP (Pan African Parliament) asked how a very small Opposition party could exercise its oversight function when the ruling party was able effectively to ignore it.

Hon. Emmanuel Munaile MP (Zambia) asked how laws could promote effective Opposition, which was necessary for good governance.

Michael Howard agreed that the position of very small Opposition parties was difficult. Parties in this situation could try to enlist the assistance of the media by articulating a critique of the Government which chimed with the feeling among the public. In some circumstances there were questions about the independence of the media, but at a minimum, Parliamentary proceedings should be reported. He considered there to be two types of people in politics: those who loved the business of politics itself and to whom it barely mattered whether they are in Government or in

61

Opposition; and those who wanted to get things done. For the latter group, Trish White’s first comment was undoubtedly true. Any party that suspected it was unworthy of winning, however, was in fact very unlikely to win.

Hon. Abdul Halim Hussain MP (Malaysia – Penang) described the situation in Malaysia as much more complex than a two-party system—both the Government and the Opposition were coalitions. He asked how representatives could explain to their constituents the changes when a party went from being in Government to being in Opposition.

Dr Tariq Fazal Chaudhry MNA (Pakistan) said that the electorate in Pakistan were reluctant to accept a “soft” role for the Opposition. They wanted to see every Government proposition being strongly opposed.

Hon David Osbourne MP (Montserrat) said that the majority party in Montserrat had taken the position that independent members should be involved in Government, and that encouraging and listening to the Opposition would result in better decisions about what to do for the country.

Michael Howard said that a track record of consistency was necessary for a party to have credibility. Changes of opinion need to be justified. There was no reason why Government and Opposition could not collaborate if there was consensus on how to tackle problems facing the country; parliamentary democracy should not encourage artificial disagreements. Circumstances varied, however, and disagreements between the parties in the United Kingdom were usually sufficiently deep to prevent coalition. It was important to educate the electorate in the role of a responsible Opposition, and that when the Government was doing the right thing it was appropriate that the Opposition support it.

Lord Jones thanked Michael Howard for his contribution to the seminar. He picked up on some of the issues raised by delegates about how smaller Opposition parties could make themselves heard. Parties in this situation could carve out a policy niche; he cited the Liberal Democrats’ opposition to the war in Iraq. It was also a good strategy to exploit the particular talents and experience of the party’s leadership to speak with authority on specific issues. UK Parliament Select Committees were crucial to the ability of Opposition parties to influence the Government. Committee systems needed to be well-resourced and well-staffed to be effective.

Andrew Tuggey reiterated the importance of professional, skilled clerks, noting that the Westminster Parliament enjoyed the advantage of dictating its own resources.

Lord Jones said that the power to insist that a Minister attends a Committee hearing is a powerful tool. He recalled this happening in Sierra Leone for the first time since the civil war.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) referred to Michael Howard’s comments about the need for Opposition parties to get the media on side. He invited the speakers to comment on the relationship between the UK Conservative Party and The Sun newspaper.

62

Hon. Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed MP (Malaysia) asked how smaller parties could maintain enthusiasm and attract new talent to join them when they could not offer a clear career path.

Mrs Leanne Rowat MLA (Canada – Manitoba) said that a mood change in a country could influence or be influenced by the media taking a greater interest in the Opposition.

Lord Jones described The Sun as “a comic”, albeit one with a very large readership. He said that the Conservative Party and Rupert Murdoch’s media empire were “cozying up” in anticipation of a Conservative victory at the next election, and that they were pursuing an anti-BBC agenda. It was important to tell people that they should not believe everything they read in the press. Politicians should make an effort to give journalists material that they could use, so there would be less temptation to make things up to fill pages. Gaining a reputation for getting radio and television appearances right first time was also useful in getting the media on side. Local elections were a very useful vehicle for maintaining enthusiasm in smaller parties, and there was no shortage in the UK of people wanting to stand as candidates in these elections. Parties should ensure that people in the constituencies were given meaningful roles. While it was important to continue to attract young people to a party, there was also great value in a demographic mix in a party’s membership— older, retired people were just as important.

Andrew Tuggey said that The Independent newspaper was reporting on the relationship between Rupert Murdoch and the Conservative Party. He commented that in the past the Labour Government had favoured The Sun with information, to the annoyance of the traditionally Labour-supporting Mirror newspaper, because of its important influence.

63

Session 2 - SCRUTINY OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Speakers: Mr Michael Fallon MP, Chairman, Treasury Select sub-Committee Mr Paul Double, The Remembrancer, City of London Mr Paul Sizeland, Director of Economic Development, City of London Corporation

Chairman: Mr Andy Love MP

Mr Andy Love MP welcomed the speakers and introduced them to the delegates.

Mr Michael Fallon MP, Chairman of the Treasury sub-Committee, explained that the United Kingdom (UK) remained in the midst of an economic crisis. The crisis had primarily been caused by a failure of the Government and by the relevant authorities to regulate and supervise the financial markets effectively. That failure had led to the UK experiencing its deepest recession since the 1930s.

Mr Fallon explained that five factors had coalesced to bring economic strife to the UK. First, banks had lent credit to businesses and consumers too readily and much too cheaply. The Government had set the Bank of England an inflation target which had taken no account of asset prices. That had meant that the Bank had not taken into account the growth in house prices, which had appreciated significantly between 1997 and 2007, when it had set interest rates.

Second, the supply of capital had been poorly regulated. Over recent years, the rules which governed the amount of capital which businesses had to hold had been loosened significantly. That oversight had been damaging for those businesses which had failed to set aside sufficient capital reserves during the boom years for use in harder economic times.

Third, there had been poor supervision of banks. In 1997, the Government had removed responsibility for the supervision of banks from the Bank of England and given it to a new organisation, the Financial Services Authority (FSA). However, the FSA had become obsessed with improving consumer protection and in doing so had neglected its other responsibilities. The FSA had allowed some banks to take too many investment risks. In 2007 banks had lent £200 billion more than they had on deposit. In total, the banks had lent businesses and individuals 220% of the UK’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That level of lending was unsustainable.

Fourth, according to Mr Fallon, the wider economy had become increasingly unbalanced. There had been an extraordinary increase in the number of people employed by the public sector while the private sector had grown comparatively slowly. Much of that expansion had been welcome, including an increase in the number of nurses and police officers recruited, however, the private sector had not been nurtured to the same extent over the same period.

Finally, the Government had neglected the public finances. The last balanced budget had been in 2001. Since then, the Government had created, through its spendthrift policies, a massive structural deficit. Other major economies had not created a

64 structural deficit on the scale of the UK over the same period and were now in much better economic shape.

Mr Fallon said that the Government must now act to address the crisis in a number of ways. Controls on credit to businesses and consumers alike must be better regulated. Never again should such major risks be taken by banks providing unsuitable businesses and individual’s levels of credit that they were unlikely ever to be in a position to repay. In future, the Government must set the Bank of England an inflation target which took into account asset prices so that a more realistic anti-inflationary policy was pursued.

Mr Fallon argued that banks and individuals must be encouraged to retain capital reserves by saving more during times of economic growth so that they had something to fall back on during an economic downturn.

Furthermore, banks must be better regulated. Banks themselves must introduce better internal safeguards and processes so that they did not take unacceptable risks. That could be achieved by the appointment of risk compliance officers and by the appointment of strong minded, independent directors. External regulation must come from the Bank of England in place of the FSA. In addition, the Bank of England would have increased powers over banks’ activities.

Over the longer term, the economy must be better balanced. There should be more focus on providing assistance to new manufacturing businesses producing environmentally friendly products and services. At the same time, the growth of the public sector must be constrained.

Finally, the public finances must be put in good order as soon as possible. The structural deficit must be addressed as a priority.

Mr Paul Double, The Remembrancer, City of London Corporation, greeted the delegates and thanked the CPA for inviting him to speak at the event. The City had been a trade centre for many centuries and was recognised in 1215 by the Magna Carta which had established its status as a place where people could trade freely. Today, the City remained a vibrant and exciting place to do business and was home to the UK's financial services industry.

Mr Double explained that the traditional role of Remembrancer was to act as the channel of communications between the Lord Mayor and the City of London on the one hand, and the Sovereign, Royal Household and Parliament on the other. The Remembrancer was also the City's Ceremonial Officer and Chief of Protocol. The Remembrancer’s department at the City of London comprised three distinct branches of work - parliamentary, ceremonial and private events. The parliamentary office was responsible for looking after the City of London's interests in Parliament with regard to all public legislation, while the ceremonial office’s objectives were to enable the Lord Mayor and City of London to welcome high profile visitors both domestically and internationally.

The City of London Corporation was unique and had some unusual responsibilities for a local authority in the United Kingdom, including its role as the police authority

65

for the City. The Corporation was headed by the Lord Mayor of the City of London, a separate and much older office than the Mayor of London.

The City also had a unique electoral system. Most of its electorate were representatives of businesses and other bodies that occupied premises in the City. The principal justification for the non-resident vote was that about 450,000 non-residents constituted the city's day-time population and use most of its services, far outnumbering the City's residents who totalled fewer than 10,000. Nevertheless, the system has long been the subject of controversy and some critics have judged it to be undemocratic.

A private Act of Parliament in 2002 reformed the voting system for the way Members were elected to the Corporation of London. Under the new system, the number of non-resident voters was doubled from 16,000 to 32,000. Previously disfranchised firms (and other organisations) were entitled to nominate voters. Now all such bodies were required to choose their voters in a representative fashion.

Business voting was regarded by the City as crucial to ensuring that commercial interests were given sufficient weight in its deliberations. The Acts of Common Council follow a similar procedure to Bills before Parliament. The Acts had a wide range of policy areas; now the FSA and other regulatory bodies were responsible for these aspects of policy.

Mr Paul Sizeland, Director of Economic Development, City of London Corporation, explained that the City’s Economic Development Office had been established in 1995. Having worked previously as a teacher in Trinidad and Tobago and in India and for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in a number of countries, Mr Sizeland had a great deal of experience of working overseas.

The City had a wider range of interests than the businesses located in the square mile of London. By way of example, the Corporation owned Epping Forest and Hampstead Heath and was responsible for the upkeep and conservation of both areas of London. The City’s focus was on promoting the interests of all UK industry particularly during the current economic difficulties which prevailed in the country and wider world.

The City also reached out to notable individuals from overseas. Honorary freedoms had been given to luminaries such as Nelson Mandela. The intention was to recognise major achievement but also to enhance relations with other countries.

Mr Sizeland said that every year the Prime Minister of the day spoke at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet to address aspects of foreign policy. Part of the role of the Lord Mayor was to act as an emissary to other countries and the role required much foreign travel. On average, the Lord Mayor spent 100 days abroad representing the City. In modern times it was usual for the Lord Mayor to remain in office for only one year because the role was so demanding.

The City was concerned with promoting business and was not a political organisation. The City had its own resources and assets and that enabled the institution to act as a trusted facilitator between the Government and the private sector. It carried out that

66

role by informing policy makers about business interests regarding issues including taxation, investment and immigration. Over £500,000 per annum was devoted to research on business matters of interest to the City.

Mr Sizeland explained that the City had a number of offices overseas. In 2004, it had opened an outreach office in Brussels in recognition of the increasing importance of the European Union for UK businesses. The City also undertook quiet diplomacy with the UK Government, the EU, the USA and other organisations. The intention was to inform key decision-makers about how policy proposals would affect business interests and to work in partnership with those organisations to support and promote the financial services industry.

Mr Love thanked the speakers and invited questions from the delegates.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) asked what consideration had been given by politicians and the City to those people who had lost their jobs and houses as a result of the excesses of City bankers. Mr Cameron also asked whether any action would be taken to end the large bonuses given to some bankers.

Hon. Trusty Gina MP (Swaziland) asked the speakers what action had been taken against those bankers who worked in the City who had driven the UK economy to the edge of ruin. Ms Gina also asked whether more could be done to enable people from Africa to gain the necessary qualifications to work in Europe.

Hon Mary Rutamwebwa Mugyenyi PAP (Pan African Parliament) asked the speakers whether they agreed that the recent crisis had demonstrated that capitalism had failed as a viable economic system and, as such, needed radical reform

Hon. Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed MP (Malaysia) said that there were likely to be more shocks in the coming months and wondered what would be done to help smaller countries through the economic crisis.

Mr Fallon said that it was an uncomfortable truth that the prime casualties of any recession were always the poor, low paid and low skilled workers. Mr Fallon maintained that those countries which had built up capital reserves during the economic upturn were better placed to help the unemployed return to work.

Some of the bonuses paid out by banks to their employees had clearly not been justified and the bonus system had encouraged irresponsible risk taking. In future bonuses must be paid to reward performance proportionately.

Mr Fallon said that while capitalism was not perfect, it was the best system available. Policy makers must learn the appropriate lessons from the economic crisis and regulate and supervise economic institutions better. That should be done through institutions including the G20 and European Union.

Mr Sizeland said that he agreed with Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, who had commented that instability was an inherent characteristic of financial markets. According to Mr Sizeland, financial markets had become increasingly complex over recent years. A clear conclusion to draw from the current

67

recession was that financial institutions must in future not sell financial products that they did not understand.

It was a misconception that all individuals who worked in the financial sector earned large salaries, many were paid modestly. Many city workers, most of whom had received an average income, had been made redundant over the past eighteen months. Although there was a great deal of public criticism of the City, it would be a mistake to over regulate financial institutions because a vibrant financial centre was vital to all successful economies. In the long term, it did not matter whether individual investors lost money in financial markets; of greater concern was the moral hazard faced by governments who had been forced to use taxpayers’ money to save private financial institutions.

Hon Kwabena Darko-Mensah MP (Ghana) asked whether there were similarities between the current economic crisis and that of 1929.

Hon. Halima James Mdee MP (Tanzania) wondered how the City was funded and why it had opened offices overseas.

Hon. Beatrice Rwakimari MP (Uganda) asked whether the economic crisis had affected the amount of money that the UK gave for international development.

Hon. Peter Nyombi MP (Uganda) asked why the Bank of England would be any better at regulating the City than the FSA had been.

Mr Paul Double said that the City had built up capital over the centuries through legacies and by charging a small business levy which was paid by firms in the City. That corporate fund gave the City a degree of independence and enabled it to promote the City to institutions overseas as a place to invest.

Mr Fallon said that in some aspects the current crisis was depressingly similar to that of 1929. Both crises had occurred as a result of an asset bubble and had led to large increases in unemployment. However, unlike in 1929, major economies were now cooperating on ways to mitigate the effects of the recession.

Mr Fallon said that to its credit the Government had maintained the level of international aid despite the economic crisis. The Conservative Party was committed to maintaining, in absolute terms, that level of expenditure should it form the next Government in 2010.

The Bank of England would be more effective than the FSA at regulating the City because it was viewed by financial institutions as more independent from Government.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) asked whether the City received a large grant from the Government to help fund its activities.

Hon. Alfreda Mwamba MP (Zambia) wondered whether the speakers would predict when economic recovery would take place.

68

Mr Teburoro Tito MP (Kiribati) said that the consequences were always disastrous if financial and military power were ever placed in the hands of the few.

Mr Double explained that the City did not rely on the Government for its funding and that, as a corporation, it existed independent of any Act of parliament.

Mr Fallon said that it would take a number of years before the UK economy regained the 6% of GDP it had already lost in the current crisis. The Government was committed to reducing the structural deficit within five years, the Conservative Party had pledged to reduce it even sooner.

Hon. Abdul Halim Hussain Speaker (Malaysia – Penang) said that the City had been wise to open offices in Asia as economic power was gradually shifting there from Europe and the USA. However, in addition to its status as a financial centre, London had many attractions including its status as a place of culture.

Hon. Paul Tse Wai-chun MP (Hong Kong) said that there was much anger about the way that some unscrupulous bankers had behaved and that they had failed to apologise for their actions. Mr Wai-chun wondered whether UK Parliamentarians had predicted the economic crisis and, if they had not, whether they had been criticised.

Mrs Kate Kamba MP (East African Legislative Assembly) argued that Africa was continually sidelined in debates about trade and wondered how trade could be encouraged in that continent.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) asked whether the crisis had been caused by a failure of leadership or governance of the system. She noted that without improved regulation, the crisis was likely to be repeated. In future, more focus should be given to the quality of life rather than on profit.

Mr Fallon agreed that London had many attractive features in addition to its financial status. The Government must ensure that the financial institutions in the City were regulated effectively but not over burdened by regulation. Strong political leadership must be provided in future so that the mistakes of the past were not repeated.

Mr Fallon acknowledged that few people had predicted the scale of the current economic crisis. The Treasury Committee had not anticipated the crisis but had warned Parliament about the rampant growth in asset prices.

Finally, Mr Fallon said that more effort should be made to encourage trade with Africa. Much had been achieved by successive GATT rounds but more could be done to overcome protectionist practices.

Mr Love thanked the Speakers and the delegates for contributing to such a stimulating and enjoyable debate. Mr Love concluded that delegates had expressed some concern that now the worst of the crisis appeared to be over, business as usual had returned in the financial sector. It was crucial that the international community worked together to put in place mechanisms to ensure that lessons were learned from the current crisis and mistakes were avoided in future.

69

Session 3 - POLITICAL PARTIES AND ENGAGING THE ELECTORATE

Speakers: Lord Soley Andrew Rosindell MP

Chairman: Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods MP

Roberta Blackman-Woods welcomed the speakers. She said that the delegates had just heard about one set of institutions that were under public scrutiny and were now going to hear about another. The role of political parties in the political process had been ignored for too long. She was always struck by the importance of political parties in the work to strengthen Parliament. Political parties were usually the reason people became involved in politics and they gave support to members. The role of political parties varied across countries in terms of how they worked and how they engaged the electorate. The first speaker would be Lord Soley, who had been a prominent parliamentarian as the Member for Hammersmith and had continued to be active since being made a peer in 2005.

Lord Soley said that he had been the Chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party from 1997-2001. He would talk about political parties and the country, political parties and Parliament and the relationship between political parties. Political parties were especially important in areas where democracy had only recently been introduced, or where there had been recent conflict. He had been part of a delegation that had gone to Kosovo, shortly after the conflict there, help to establish political parties. The idea of compromise could be a difficult one following conflict.

In the UK the structure of political parties was built on local constituency associations. These associations passed resolutions and helped set the agenda of the parliamentary party. Parties also needed a way of selecting leaders. It was important to remember that participation in a political party was voluntary, the parliamentary party was there to represent the views of the wider party but there were going to be disagreements. Parties needed a way to manage that.

Conflicts within the party had been a problem for Labour in the 1970s when the parliamentary party and the executive had disagreed about the direction of party policy. It was a common problem and had also affected the Conservative Party. The Labour Party had changed its structure to try and minimise problems; they had allowed the parliamentary party to have a separate constitution within the Labour constitution. There were four officers of the party, including the Chairman of the parliamentary party. The Chairman was elected each year and together with seven other colleagues elected by the parliamentary party had meetings with the Prime Minister, the Deputy Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and any other relevant Ministers. Committees had been set up to shadow Government departments and ministers were expected to attend their meetings. By and large it had been a success.

The relationship between political parties was often difficult in countries coming out a conflict. It was easier for parties to work together in countries with established democracies. ‘The usual channels’ was a phrase used in UK political life and it meant the whips offices of the political parties communicating with each other to achieve a compromise.

70

In countries which had experienced recent conflict is was important to try and make politics an alternative to war. This required good organisation and structure, engaging with the media and being as inclusive as possible. In Iraq, for example, political parties were unwilling to reach beyond their core constituencies for support. Political parties had to be able to seek support from outside their tranditional supporters. They also needed to work with other parties.

Roberta Blackman-Woods introduced Andrew Rosindell MP.

Andrew Rosindell MP thanked the Commonwealth Parlimentary Association for inviting him to speak. It was a pleasure to welcome friends and representatives from around the Commonwealth. He had been privileged to visit many of the countries that the delegates were representing.

Engaging with the electorate was something that everyone had to do; it was important to connect with the person in the street and stop them from feeling neglected by or distanced from the political process. The UK and the Commonwealth had a lot in common. Often, their constitutions were similar.

The type of electoral system in use mattered. Different systems would produce different levels of engagement by the electorate. The first past the post system used in Westminster elections was the best method as it meant each constituency was served by a single Member and each Member had a defined constituency. People knew who their Member was and that Member had to engage with the people. With a proportional representation electoral system there was no incentive to engage with the electorate, just to be active within the party to ensure you were included on the party’s candidate list.

The use of the internet had changed the relationship with the electorate. Members could receive several hundred emails every day and it was important to respond to them. Anyone wanting to be a parliamentarian should take engagement with the electorate seriously. As well as using new technology it was important to use traditional methods of engaging with the electorate. Knocking on doors and attending community events were good ways of meeting constituents.

Different political parties had different approaches. Some were more centralised and others preferred to devolve power. At present the UK had a more centralised system.

Hon David Osbourne MP (Montserrat) said it was important to bring people from different parties together in a common dialogue. Political parties worked more closely together in parliament than at other levels where they were often at loggerheads. This hampered fresh thought and proper debate.

Kelvin Davies MP (New Zealand) said that he took issue with the argument that those elected through proportional representation did not work to engage the electorate. If parliamentarians did not do this work then they would not be reselected.

71

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) said that senators were elected by proportional representation but they all worked hard. He asked what effect the coverage of Members’ expenses had had on the goodwill that had been established through engaging with the electorate and whether people had become disillusioned.

Hon Francis Kaboneka MP (Rwanda) said that in his country political parties based their engagement with people on their tribe or religion. When the Government tried to prevent this they were accused of trying to stifle political parties. What should the Government do to promote greater inclusiveness among political parties.

Lord Soley said that there were advantages and disadvantages in any electoral system. On the matter of expenses it had been very bad for the reputation of Parliament. A lot of Members felt they had been treated unfairly. It would not be possible to overcome the suspicion of Members for some time and it could only be done once there had been a period of openness.

He recalled discussing concerns about future leadership change with a Chinese official. There were variations between countries in terms of their political system and it was important to be better at responding to cultural differences but that was very hard.

Andrew Rosindell said that while he accepted many parliamentarians elected by proportional representation worked very hard, the system prevented them from being as engaged with constituents because they did not have clearly defined constituencies. With regard to expenses, Members were not properly paid for the work they did. They should receive a suitable salary and this should not be topped up with allowances. A lot of the story had been driven by media spin and the public were not aware of the full story.

Hon Rethabile Marumo MP (Lesotho) asked how parliamentarians in countries with less developed democracies could engage given the constraints they had due to the lack of an established structure.

Hon Trusty Gina MP (Swaziland) asked how African parliamentarians could be helped, given the lack of resources they had to work with.

Nawab Abdul Ghani Talpur MP (Pakistan) asked whether laws could be overturned by the judiciary in the UK.

Andrew Rosindell said that the questions asked by the delegates from Lesotho and Swaziland both dealt with lack of resources and having less developed institutions. It was important to remember that every country evolved over time. The most important elements for the growth of a strong democracy were free speech and for the Government to allow political parties to communicate with the people.

Roberta Blackman-Woods explained that as a division had been called she would have to leave, as would Mr Rosindell. Lord Soley would stay to answer questions.

72

Lord Soley said that it took a lot of time to build the relationships necessary for a healthy democracy. That was where the CPA could help. It took willingness by political leaders. The courts could not strike down laws but could say that particular laws needed to be reviewed.

Hon Ahmed Ibrahim MP (Ghana) asked how the electorate could be educated about political parties and the political process. What could be done to resolve the problem of the incumbency advantage when it came to campaigning?

Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) asked whether the opposition received any resources in the same way the Government did.

Hon Mohamed Abdikadir MP (Kenya) said that there was a distance between the electorate and politicians. Parliamentarians were elected on a manifesto but once in parliament did not implement their pledges.

Lord Soley said that the questions all addressed issues of state building. A very important point had been raised about the difference in resources between the Government and the opposition. If the Government voted themselves more resources that would create a strong sense of unfairness. This had been the case in some African countries and also some other countries, for example Ukraine and Northern Ireland. In the case of Northern Ireland the Government had tried to make sure there was equality. The media was also important. There was a national media in the UK but this was not the case in other parts of the world which made it difficult for parties to get their messages across.

73

Session 4 - ENGAGING WITH CIVIL SOCIETY

Speakers: Mr Vijay Krishnarayan, Deputy Director, Commonwealth Foundation Mr Chandu Krishnan, Executive Director, Transparency International Ms Laura McCann, Public Affairs Officer, Cancer Research UK

Chairman: Mr Tom Levitt MP

Mr Tom Levitt MP welcomed the speakers and introduced them to the delegates. He said that the session would address the question of what was meant by the term “civil society”: grassroots organisations, electors, or the voiceless who were directly affected by policies. He noted that civil society now encompassed physical and virtual communities. He drew delegates’ attention to the work done by parliamentarians to engage with civil society, including the All Party Parliamentary Group on the Community and Voluntary sector.

Mr Vijay Krishnarayan, Deputy Director, Commonwealth Foundation, explained that the Commonwealth Foundation was one of three intergovernmental Commonwealth agencies. It had been established in 1965 to address the needs of the People’s Commonwealth. He noted that the nature of civil society had changed dramatically since 1965: civil society organisations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Save the Children were not established until the 1970s. In 1965, however, there was already an understanding that people’s organisations were central. Civil society was represented by professional associations, such as the Commonwealth Forestry Association. Since that time, the engagement of civil society in policymaking had grown from an engagement with professional organisations to encompass a wide range of civil society and non-governmental organisations.

Mr Krishnarayan noted that the engagement of policymakers with civil society took place on four levels: local, national, regional and international. Representatives of civil society were keen to shape and influence the policy agenda. At an international level, civil society was able to engage in discussion at the highest levels; for example, civil society had a seat at the table at meetings of Commonwealth Health Ministers, Finance Ministers and Ministers for Women’s Affairs. The value that civil society brought to these meetings was recognised by heads of government. The role of civil society at a regional level was less clear, but increasingly civil society had a role to play in regional forums addressing issues such as trade. At a national level, the channels for engagement in parliamentary processes were well-established. At a local level, civil society had a role to play in delivering services where gaps were left by state provision.

The diversity of civil society was increasing. Twenty years ago, there had been approximately 200 international non-governmental organisations; now there were over 40 000. Mr Krishnarayan noted that some organisations were more adept than others at making their voices heard within parliamentary processes, and said that it was important that parliamentarians considered how the voiceless might gain access to such processes. He also drew attention to the fact that the institutions with which civil society sought to engage were also changing: many parliamentarians now brought experience of engagement with, or playing an active role in, civil society.

74

Modern technology such as the internet was also changing the nature of the interaction between parliamentarians and civil society: supporters could be mobilised quickly and easily, and technology could facilitate direct engagement with parliamentarians.

Mr Chandu Krishnan, Executive Director, Transparency International, explained that he would be speaking from the other side of the debate, as a representative of a civil society organisation. He said that Transparency International had been established in 1993 and was born out of a concern that corruption was not receiving adequate attention. Transparency International worked in partnership with government, business and other civil society organisations.

In the UK, Transparency International (TI) had a policy of zero tolerance for corruption. It defined corruption as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain”. Mr Krishnan noted that many pillars supported national integrity: the executive, the legislature, civil society and the media. If one of the pillars was weakened, the structure of the society was weakened.

As an example of TI’s engagement with parliamentary processes, he described the work it had done on corruption laws in the UK. He noted that the UK’s corruption laws were old and were inadequate for prosecuting bribery abroad; for example, in cases where UK businesses had entered into corrupt arrangements overseas. In 2006 TI had commissioned lawyers to draft anti-bribery legislation. The organisation had engaged with parliamentarians and secured cross-party support. The bill was introduced under the Ten Minute Rule in order to throw a spotlight on the issue, but did not become law. The Government did, however, ask the Law Commission for proposals for anti-corruption legislation; as a result, a Bribery Bill had been drafted and had undergone parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill was expected to be passed in the next Session of Parliament.

Ms Laura McCann, Public Affairs Officer, Cancer Research UK, explained that Cancer Research UK was the world’s leading charity on cancer research and the UK’s largest fundraising charity. It sought to influence government policy on health, science and charities and was keen to engage with parliamentarians on these matters.

Ms McCann explained the approach that Cancer Research UK took to lobbying. It aimed to influence the public policy agenda using an evidence-based approach. She underscored the fact that the organisation was entirely independent of government and not subject to political influence. She explained that Cancer Research UK advised and supported parliamentarians on some issues, and pressed and lobbied them on others. She noted that the charity adopted a strategic approach that targeted both Houses of Parliament. It aimed to influence policy at the highest levels by means of discussions with Secretaries of State, the Prime Minister and Front-Bench Opposition Members. She noted, however, that all MPs were important to the charity’s work, and that it also sought to engage future MPs.

She explained the various methods used by Cancer Research UK to engage with parliamentarians. These included regular briefings, an e-bulletin, awareness-raising events (such as the recent “Molewatch”), formal and informal meetings at party

75

conferences and local engagement in Members’ constituencies. She described the charity’s strategy for engaging in parliamentary processes such as debates and the passing of legislation. It provided speaking notes for Members wishing to speak in a debate, offered briefings explaining complex scientific evidence and gave guidance on voting. She used as an example recent legislation relating to the sale of tobacco, and explained how Cancer Research UK had engaged with parliamentarians to lobby them on this issue.

She described the campaigning approach adopted by Cancer Research UK to engage members of the public. She also noted that Cancer Research had a valuable relationship with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on cancer and that it often gave evidence to select committees in Westminster and in the devolved administrations.

Hon. Kwabena Darko-Mensah MP (Ghana) asked about the definition of corruption used by Transparency International. He said that, where bribery occurred, the individual who held public office should be held to be more culpable than the person offering the bribe.

Hon. Emilia Monjowa Lifaka MP (Cameroon) said that the activities of organisations such as Transparency International sometimes constituted an intrusion into the affairs of sovereign states.

She also said that many of the new civil society organisations did not represent the views of the grassroots, but nevertheless had influence over policy.

She then questioned why money was spent on cancer research but not on the treatment of cancer sufferers.

Hon. Abdul Halim Hussain (Malaysia) asked what form of registration was required of civil society organisations. He asked about the political allegiances of the patrons of Cancer Research UK.

He asked whether Transparency International had a policy on party funding, and asked how the influence of big business over politics might be curbed.

Mr Chandu Krishnan said that the law should punish both parties in a bribery case, as both were corrupt. Anti-corruption laws were only effective if both the giving and receiving of bribes were illegal.

He said that Transparency International was very respectful of national sovereignty, but that in pursuing its anti-corruption mandate it would at times be necessary to question government activity.

He acknowledged that the question of party funding was a challenging one. He noted that the UK system was vulnerable, as there was no cap on donations. He argued that this created a dependency on big business, which in turn gained an unfair advantage over political parties. He said that an increase in state funding and a cap on donations were necessary.

76

Ms Laura McCann said that 1 in 3 people in the UK could expect to have cancer. The UK was seen as a leader in biomedical research and work done in the UK would have an international benefit.

She explained that Cancer Research UK was registered with the Charity Commission and said that care was taken not to be party political during its campaigns. Its patrons had no undue political influence over the activities of the charity.

Mr Vijay Krishnarayan said that the space occupied by civil society was becoming increasingly crowded and that many organisations were competing for a seat at the table. He said that this competition was based to some extent on the credibility established by individual civil society organisations, by means of mobilising support or by providing evidence to support their arguments. He said that the Commonwealth Foundation was well-placed to support member states who wished to address the question of regulating the NGO sector.

Hon. Beatrice Rwakimari MP (Uganda) asked how countries could build capacity for beating corruption and asked for examples of corruption cases being pursued.

Hon. Mary Rutamwebwa Mugyenyi PAP (Pan-African Parliament) asked about the funding of civil society organisations from abroad. She said that local, community- based organisations had more contact with the grassroots than international NGOs.

She noted that some African countries had over-legislated on matters of corruption but that corruption remained a problem. She said that it was important to fight against corrupt practices of investors operating abroad.

Mr Chandu Krishnan highlighted the importance of stakeholder engagement, and explained that TI had strong partnerships with other NGOs in the UK. These organisations had been united in their support for the Bribery Bill he had described earlier. He agreed that it was the implementation of legislation that was important, and said that it was important to fight corruption on the supply side. He said that the UK had a role to play in insisting on greater transparency for companies operating abroad.

Mr Vijay Krishnarayan said that the main focus of the Commonwealth Foundation was engaging national and international NGOs with each other across boundaries. He said that regulation needed to be effective in order to achieve its aim.

Hon. Mathew Nyuma MP (Sierra Leone) said that Western donors needed to engage with politicians in developing countries. He also asked how levels of corruption in a given country were measured.

Mr Nawab Abdul Ghani Talpur MNA (Pakistan) asked how corruption in access to public services could be stopped.

Hon. Emmanuel Munaile MP (Zambia) said that NGOs were resisting attempts to make them more accountable while insisting on the need for governments to be accountable.

77

Mr Chandu Krishnan explained that the corruption perception index was a survey based on the perception of corruption.

He said that corruption in infrastructure could be tackled with an independent monitoring regime and sanctions.

He agreed that civil society needed to be accountable and said that TI insisted on the transparency of the actions of its national chapters. It worked with other organisations to promote these principles. He underscored the importance of an international charter for NGOs.

Ms Laura McCann explained that Cancer Research UK was registered with the Charity Commission and was required to publish its annual report and accounts. She noted that the UK Government gave tax relief on donations and said that this ensured accountability through HMRC.

Dr Tariq Fazal Chaudry MNA (Pakistan) asked for an explanation of the corruption index.

Mr Teburoro Tito MP (Kiribati) asked for a definition of the terms “NGO” and “civil society”.

Mr Vijay Krishnarayan said that NGOs were one element of civil society. He added that the Commonwealth Foundation was working on materials to provide a definition of civil society.

Mr Chandu Krishnan said that the corruption perception index was based on a subjective survey and was not an authority on the levels of corruption in a given country.

78

Session 5 - THE COMMITTEE SYSTEM

Speakers: Ms Jacqy Sharpe, Clerk of Committees Mr Mike Gapes, Chairman, Foreign Affairs Select Committee

Chairman: Mr Eric Illsely. Member for Barnsley South

Mr Eric Illsley, Chairman and Member for Barnsley South, welcomed delegates to the session. He introduced the two speakers, Jacqy Sharpe, Clerk of Committees and Mike Gapes, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

Ms Jacqy Sharpe, Clerk of Committees, thanked the Chairman for his introduction. She explained that there are two types of Committee: legislative and investigative and that her presentation would focus mainly on the investigative committees, or Select Committees.

She explained that the Select Committee system had been established in 1979. Members of Select Committees sat round a horseshoe-shaped table, reinforcing the consensual way these committees operate. Examples of departmental committees were Foreign Affairs and Treasury. Non-departmental ones included the Public Accounts and the Environmental Audit Committees. There were also joint select committees, such as Human Rights, and domestic ones connected to matters concerning the House. Finally, there were also the newly created Regional Committees.

She continued to talk about departmental committees, which had been established to examine particular departments of state. There were 19 departmental Select Committees, with membership of between 11 and 19, reflecting the balance in the House. Members were made up of mostly backbenchers. Ministers did not serve on these committees. The Chairmen also reflected the majority on the House. Committees were supported by a team of permanent staff, comprising two clerks and two to three administrative staff. In addition, they were supported by committee specialists and for the last few years were able to also call on the expertise of the Scrutiny Unit. This unit had experts in law, finance and other disciplines.

She explained that one of the major recent changes to the system was to appoint Members of Select Committees for entire parliaments. This had made a fundamental difference, as members can build up knowledge and experience, she said. She explained the powers of Select Committees: the power to send for a person’s paper and records; the power to sit at any time even when Parliament is not sitting and to sit outside Westminster; the power to report as many times to the House as they choose; and finally the power to appoint specialist advisors. One other matter, which was not in the Standing Orders regarding Select Committees was the right to choose their own inquiries, she added. The subjects of inquiries might be, for example, topical matters, departmental annual reports and appointment hearings. Select Committees tended to meet once or twice a week when the House was sitting, she explained. They generally took evidence in public, but sometimes in private if matters were confidential. A full transcript was published after public sessions. When select committees ended an inquiry the committee went through a report paragraph by paragraph to reach

79

agreement. In general committees managed to agree. The report was made to the House and it was a convention that the Government should reply within two months. Then there was the opportunity to initiate a debate in the chamber, or in Westminster Hall.

She also mentioned the Liaison Committee, a committee composed of all the chairmen of the select committees. It was appointed to consider matters with regard to committee business, which was helpful if there is any difficulty in getting hold of persons and papers; -it also chose the reports for debate in the House; and took evidence twice a year from the Prime Minister. She explained that this custom had only been in place since 2002. The Prime Minister would sit by himself in front the committee, with no civil servants accompanying him.

Mr Mike Gapes, Chairman, Foreign Affairs Select Committee, started by expanding on how the Liaison Committee’s session with the Prime Minister worked. Prime Minister Tony Blair suggested to the Liaison Committee that he give evidence and it ended up becoming a twice-annual formal session. This continued under Gordon Brown. He described it as an intensive session because the Prime Minster would have no notes. Members would pose up to eight or nine questions. They would hunt in packs, forming subgroups across parties in order to question him.

He continued to talk about the composition of Select Committees after an election, explaining that with the upcoming election, there will likely be a gap in scrutiny of the Government as it would take some time to form them. Select committees were appointed for a whole parliament, with some having a higher status than others, with Members keen to be on them, and others, perceived as less important. Membership was worked out on the basis of seniority, interest, views and gender, he added. The first thing that would happen would be the election of the chairman. In the British system, a number of committees were chaired by the Opposition. For example currently the Defence and Business, Innovation and Skills Committees were chaired by opposition members. Normally the Government chaired Treasury, Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs. However, he emphasised the importance placed on Chairmen not behaving in a party-political manner. Also often divisions were not between parties, but cross-party, he added.

He went on to talk the work undertaken by the Foreign Affairs Committee during his chairmanship. He explained the Committee’s powers regarding scrutinising the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and related organisations such as the British Council and the World Service. He explained that the Committee was currently doing an inquiry into the FCO’s annual report. A few months ago the Committee produced a Report on non-proliferation. It had also looked at the arms trade treaty and chemical and biological weapons. He mentioned a recent Report, which had attracted a lot of media attention, which had made some critical remarks about Government policy in Afghanistan, but had said that withdrawal would be disastrous. He also mentioned his committee’s work scrutinising the Government’s annual report on human rights and its work scrutinising appointments such as the appointment of the new High Commissioner to Australia, Baroness Amos. He also mentioned the committee called CAKE, or the committee on arms export controls, which comprised members from the Foreign Affairs, International Development and Defence Committees. He highlighted British parliamentary scrutiny on arms controls as better than in many

80

other countries.

Finally, he went on to talk about the process of agreeing a report. Committees took in written submissions, oral evidence and other sources of information such as visits and then produced a report with recommendations. Once the Chairman had approved a draft, it would go to the other members, to make amendments. Once issued, the report became the property of the House and the Government should respond to each recommendation. Then the Committee would have the chance to get their report debated, for example, he added, he was pressing for a debate on his committee’s report on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mr Illsely, the Chairman, then moved on to questions.

The Hon. Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP from Bangladesh asked how many committees are chaired by opposition members.

Mrs Kate Kamba from the East African Legislative Assembly asked Ms Jacqy Sharpe to elaborate on the difference between legislative and departmental committees and what happens when a committee publishes a report and the Government doesn’t act on it.

Senator Douglas Niven Cameron from Australia asked to hear more about the Liaison Committee, in particular how far Labour Members actually act impartially in the session, or do they try to protect the Prime Minister.

Ms Jacqy Sharpe responded to the second question first, adding that the legislative committees were organised the like chamber, so that they were much more confrontational. The Chairman was impartial, however. They would go through legislation line by line. The departmental select committees, by contract, were very much investigative.

Mr Mike Gapes answered the first question, saying that out of the 33 select committees 13 were chaired by the opposition. He added that some of those committees were quite senior, for example the Public Accounts Committee, which was always chaired by a member of the opposition. Defence and BIS were also currently chaired by opposition members, he said.

He went on to the final question about the Liaison Committee, explaining that before the session the committee would have a discussion about the subjects it wants to focus on and would allocate the questions equally between Members, despite being from different parties and different committees. He said that it was part of the Prime Minister’s job to deal with that challenge and the standard was set very high by Tony Blair.

On the second part of the second question, regarding Government responses to reports, he explained that Committee reports often contained a large number of conclusions and recommendations. The Government may agree with a lot of them, partly agree with some others and say explicitly that it disagrees on a few. Committees have no power to force the Government to agree, but often, over time, the Government will come round. He cited the influence of his committee in this way on

81

policy in Afghanistan. He also referred to a report his committee had produced following a visit to the Turks and Caicos Islands, which highlighted corruption there and recommended an inquiry, which led to the discovery that corruption was indeed going on.

The Hon.Trish White MP from South Australia then asked the speakers to elaborate on the role of the House of Lords Committees. She also asked what difference legislative committees make to Bills.

The Hon. Beatrice Rwakimari MP From Uganda asked out of the 33 chairman how many are women and what is the quorum for committee decisions.

The Hon. Emmanuel Munaile MP from Zambia asked how reports are presented to Government. Are they automatically debated in the House and can they be rejected there?

The Hon. Rebecca Kadaga MP from Uganda cited a situation where she had had difficulty getting a report agreed regarding the budget and asked for advice on how to deal with trying to get agreement.

Ms Jacqy Sharpe responded on the question regarding the difference legislative committees make to Bills, saying that there was an advantage in terms of drafting to bills going before committee.

Mr Mike Gapes added that often a lot of amending was done in the Lords. On the second question, he said that there were currently three female chairs of committees, adding that in his opinion this was not reflective of the number of women in the House, but the fact that to become a Select Committee chair you have to have been in Parliament for some time. On the final question about debating reports, he explained that it was not automatic that a report was debated. It was necessary to bid for a slot.

Mr Eric Illsely pointed out with regard to the first question that it was rare that the Government won’t accept a change to a bill. On the final question he emphasised that UK committees tried to work to consensus, so this situation rarely occurs.

The Hon. Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP from Bangladesh asked if members can join committees when they like.

The Hon Cedric Thomas Frolick MP from South Africa asked about how finance bills are passed.

Senator Douglas Niven Cameron from Australia asked about public participation in Parliament

The Hon. Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed MP from Malaysia asked if the PAC has the power to look at the accounts of private companies, as well as public bodies.

The Hon. Abdul Halim Hussain from Malaysia asked if the Speaker sits on any committees and what the relationship between the Speaker and the Prime Minister is.

82

The Hon. Emilia Monjowa Lifka MP from Cameroon asked about how the budget is debated in committee

Mr Mike Gapes answered the question about public participation, mentioning committee trips outside Westminster and the growing use of e-communications and e- petitions. On the question about the Speaker’s relationship with the Prime Minister, he said that there were no official meetings between them, adding that when the Speaker was elected he breaks with his political past, so that he was politically neutral.

Ms Jacqy Sharpe answered the question about members joining committees when they like. She said that anyone was allowed to attend a committee, but members could not formally take part unless officially selected.

Mr Eric Illsely answered the question about scrutiny of the Budget. He explained how this was done by the Treasury Committee. On the question about scrutiny of private companies, he explained that the Public Accounts Committee, which does financial scrutiny, could not investigate any company, but it could investigate those who have been awarded Government contracts.

83

Session 6 - WORKING WITH BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

Speakers: Ms Sally Muggeridge, Chief Executive, Industry and Parliament Trust Mr Bill Olner MP, Chair of Trustees, Industry and Parliament Trust Mr Ian Pellow, Chair and CEO, Throgmorton

Chairman: Baroness Harris of Richmond

Baroness Harris of Richmond welcomed the speakers and introduced them to the delegates. They would, she said, demonstrate why the Industry and Parliament Trust was of vital importance in raising knowledge of industry within parliament and of parliament across industry.

Ms Sally Muggeridge said that the Industry and Parliament Trust (IPT), founded in 1977 to forge a two-way connection between industry and parliament, was proud to be no longer unique, having been increasingly emulated across Europe and in New Zealand. The IPT was of inestimable value—every democracy should have one. Its role was not to lobby Members of Parliament, but to educate, and to do so in two directions. It helped MPs and Lords to learn more about how industry worked, in all its variety. And it aided those who worked in numerous industrial and business sectors to discover how parliament drafted, considered and passed the Bills that provided the legislative framework within which business and industry operated. The IPT provided the forum within which the two sides could meet and share their knowledge. The IPT was proud to have the Speaker of the House of Commons as its President, and also conscious of how essential it was to the success of such a trust that the President should be so influential but non-partisan. Half of the present House of Commons had been in business or undertaken an IPT programme, such as “From Farm To Fork”, to raise their awareness of the issues facing business and industry. Groups from outside parliament found invaluable the opportunity to learn from MPs, Lords and the two Houses’ legal advisers how the law was made.

Mr Ian Pellow spoke of the benefits of the IPT from the business perspective and of the trust’s importance in providing a forum within which to engage with parliamentarians. The organisation relied for its finance on corporate donations, receiving no grants and making no profit. MPs could earn fellowships in industry through taking short courses via the IPT; and industrialists did the same in reverse by spending time on a four-day programme within parliament. Education was the central theme underlying the IPT’s work. The ability to change and influence policy could only be enhanced by the spread of knowledge in both directions, and the recent financial crisis had displayed the importance of the two sectors working closely together. An example of the benefits lay in the recent decision of a major Chinese bank to locate in London: knowledge of the legislative and taxation frameworks within which it would operate was a significant aid in discussion of that decision.

Mr Bill Olner MP had been introduced as the ‘only vertical or jig borer in Parliament’, a fact which illustrated his long experience in industry before he entered Parliament in 1992. But that experience had been of his own industry and his own factory rather than of the wider picture or the investment decisions his company had to make, and the opportunity to widen his knowledge through the IPT had been the

84

perfect way to fill the knowledge gap. He had seen many of his trade union brothers lose their work in the past because of lack of knowledge about research and development and a reliance on the successful product of today with no thought of its success five, ten, fifteen years down the line. The IPT helped MPs to appreciate more about how industry interfaced with the EU and the rest of Europe, with India, with China and with the rest of the world’s competing countries. It also helped new MPs to find out something about the civil service, and how the civil service mind worked—of which, in spite of many years in local government, he had previously had no knowledge at all. His own fellowship, with the GKN Company, had shown how much there was to gain from learning more about industrial and financial processes, and he agreed entirely that every country should have an equivalent.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) asked how the race towards the lowest possible levels of international taxation could be justified given the worldwide social problems that stood to be resolved.

Mr Pellow said that governments always had to perform a difficult balancing act on taxation. Arguments would always occur about the role of offshoring and about low- tax regimes. London was generally perceived as having a high-tax regime but many companies invested there, none the less, as there were many reasons beyond tax levels which played a part in decisions on where to invest, including security and personal safety. Switzerland might be seen as having particularly low taxes and business- friendly regulation, but there were many factors determining where investment occurred.

Mr Olner said that the British government and Chancellor Alistair Darling were especially aware of the need for global financial measures. There were many nuances in taxation policy, as the presence of special arrangements in, for example, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man demonstrated.

Baroness Harris added that although the House of Lords had no influence on finance or taxation legislation, it debated it thoroughly none the less.

Hon. Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed MP (Malaysia) asked about the role of transfer payments, given that multinational companies did not pay taxes in all countries in which they operated, and about whether there should be a crackdown on tax havens.

Mr Pellow said that multinational companies should be enabled to tax plan advantageously, but that there was a balancing act to perform and their activities were regulated by international tax treaties and, in the UK, by a highly sophisticated Revenue and Customs department.

Mr Olner imagined that, like most people, he knew more about his own finances than about international taxation. This demonstrated why the IPT was so important in broadening knowledge of domestic and international business finance, and he was grateful that companies such as Mr Pellow’s were willing to participate to help dispel the mystique of the global financial sector. Taxes were raised for good purposes, but people would always seek to avoid them, as surely as night followed day.

85

Rt Hon. Rebecca Kadaga MP (Uganda) asked how parliamentarians who worked with IPT could be prevented from becoming lobbyists for the companies they worked with.

Mr Olner said that the arrangement was self-regulating. Any attempt to promote a company with which a Member had worked would be frowned on. There was no legal sanction, and this was simply a matter of the ethos of the IPT. He had never known of any difficulty in this respect.

Baroness Harris said the arrangements were a question of good governance, and that no payments were made by companies to those who spent time with them under the auspices of the IPT.

Mr Pellow said there was a mutual understanding that lobbying would be inappropriate. No payments were involved, and there was mutual respect between industry and parliament on that point.

Mr Olner said IPT was about a transfer of knowledge. He had never asked a question on behalf of GKN, with which he had done his fellowship, and nor would he ever. The fact that the Speaker was president of the IPT also helped with its legitimacy.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) asked whether there should be a similar scheme linking agriculture and parliament, given the interests of European Union and Commonwealth countries in agricultural policy.

Hon. Monjowa Emilia Lifaka MP (Cameroon) sought more information on how non-parliamentary work done by Members of Parliament should be declared.

Baroness Harris said that Members of Parliament were entitled to do outside work but must always declare their interest in the Register of Members Interests. They might participate in debates in which they had an interest, so long as they declared it, but might be wise not to vote in it.

86

MONDAY 16 NOVEMBER 09

Session 2 - OVERVIEW OF UKREP’S WORK ON DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNANCE AND TRADE

Speakers: Mr Martin Reynolds, Counsellor, Development and Trade, UKREP (UK Representation to the EU)

Mr Martin Reynolds explained that he was a Counsellor dealing with external relations and shared his work in this area with another Counsellor. He dealt with trade, development, and the further part of the world, reporting to the Ambassador to the Political Security Committee, Tim Barrow. Tim Barrow had been due to welcome delegates to UKREP but had unfortunately been called to another meeting, the first of a two day ministerial meeting on Foreign Affairs. The meeting was also considering defence and development. This was therefore a busy time in Brussels, with lots of ministers in town.

Delegates were now in the new UKREP building. The move to the building had been part of a reorganisation of the UK presence in Brussels. As part of this reorganisation, the bilateral Embassy had been brought into UKREP. The building was close to the key European institutions.

One of the most important issues in the EU at the moment was who would take the three top jobs created by the Treaty of Lisbon: the President of the European Council; the new High Representative role, which was designed to bring together the Commission and the Council in external facing work (Mr Reynolds was not allowed to call it a foreign minister); and the Secretary General of the Council, who would be a very senior bureaucrat. A meeting of the European Council was taking place on Thursday and Prime Minister Gordon Brown would be in town.

The EU had evolved greatly over the last 20 to 30 years, but trade remained its bedrock. From the UK’s perspective there were two key aspects to trade and the EU. The first was to promote an EU that was outward facing and open – quite a challenge in the current economic climate. The second was to integrate trade with development.

Mr Reynolds had three key functions. The first was working on the EU support for the Doha Development Round. The European Commission negotiated on behalf of all EU Member States at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). This meant that a lot of the work took place before the WTO on agreeing the Commission’s mandate. Mr Reynolds was currently negotiating this mandate. His second key area of work was in EU bilateral Free Trade Agreements, such as with India or South Korea. The Commission led these negotiations also, but the mandate and impetus came from Member States who did a lot of the preparation. Once the Commission had concluded bilateral negotiations it would ask Member States for their agreement. This was the stage which had been reached in the EU’s negotiations with South Korea.

Mr Reynolds’ third area of work was in Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with the ACP region (group of African, Caribbean and Pacific countries). A number of agreements had been signed recently. Their main objective was to phase out the beneficial agreements that had been in place with ACP countries and replace them

87

with standard non-preferential arrangements. The question was where to go from here, in particular how relations between the EU and the ACP could be improved further. UKREP’s role was to monitor and support the Commission in this work.

Development work was different to trade. The Commission had very significant resources in development and, through specific instruments, was able to take decisions about how to support countries. However, many Member States also had large bilateral aid budgets. This was therefore a shared competence.

There were three main challenges in development. The first was making the EU a more effective development partner. Four or five years ago Clare Short had called the Commission the worst development agency in the world. It had improved by miles since then and was now considered one of the better agencies. The second challenge was to bring Member States’ and the EU’s budget into a coherent whole. Collectively, the EU and its Member State’s development budgets made up 60% of the world’s overall aid budget. If this could be joined up, the EU would have a more powerful voice. This work was really about political leadership. The third challenge was to join up the development dimensions with the other policies in which the EU was engaged – namely trade, climate change and migration. Without such links there was a real risk of silo-based policymaking.

The third part of Mr Reynolds’s job was more state driven – dealing with specific issues across the world. He spent a lot of time in crisis regions, such as Burma and Zimbabwe. The EU played a significant role in such states, not just through aid but also through specific instruments. These included election monitoring, as in Afghanistan recently, or sanctions, which the EU had in place in relation to Burma, for example. Sanctions were far more effective when Member States acted together. The EU also had missions. ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy) missions tended to be at the softer security end. They were very different to NATO missions, and focusing on areas such as security sector reform and police training. Traditionally the EU produced good policy instruments. The challenge was integration. The EU was far less good at this. For example observation missions and provided funding for democracy building but had never tried to bring these strands together.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) said that a big issue in bilateral trade negotiations was larger states dominating smaller ones. Often there was a spaghetti bowl approach: lots of interconnectedness but no coherence. He asked what the EU and the UK were doing within their bilateral negotiations to enhance DOHA. He also asked whether UKREP carried out any econometric modelling of outcomes. Australia had employed such modelling and it was useless.

Mr Martin Reynolds said that the disparity in negotiating positions was clearly a big issue. The UK and EU’s approach was to put aside a significant amount of money to aid smaller states and help address this problem by capacity building. If you looked at the EPA negotiations, there had been a lot of input from NGOs. The spaghetti bowl metaphor was one of the reasons why the UK was clear that DOHA was its main goal. The UK continued to pursue bilateral agreements but these had to be consistent with DOHA, which was the big prize. A lot depended on the US position moving forward. For the first time in WTO history, Europe and its farmers were not the main barrier to a deal. The EU was playing an important constructive role.

88

He was no expert on statistics and modelling. This tended to be done by the Commission so he was not qualified to answer the question on econometric modelling.

Hon. Trusty Gina MP (Swaziland) said that a number of delegates had been unable to come to Brussels because they could not get visas and asked what the EU was doing about this.

Swaziland’s main source of income was sugar cane. Now that the price of sugar cane had gone down, the EU was investing money in upgrading farms in Swaziland. However, instead of giving money to small farmers it had given all the pot to one big company. Even if parliamentarians in Swaziland carried a motion to reverse this, the government said that it could not do anything since this was a deal between the EU and the large company. She asked what support could be given to small farmers in Swaziland.

Martin Reynolds said that he was not an expert on visa issues. However, the UK was not part of Schengen so visas were a bilateral issue for the UK.

Since the sugar cane project would have been agreed between the European Commission and the company involved, UKREP would not have followed it closely.

Andrew Tuggey DL, Secretary, CAP UK branch, suggested this was an issue worth raising with the Commission later.

Mr Stuart Farrow MP (South Africa) said that agricultural nations were concerned about EU subsidies. He asked what the chances were of states like South Africa being able to trade in a free market with the EU.

Martin Reynolds said that the UK wanted EU subsidies to be reduced, but this was very politically difficult and sensitive. There had been significant changes to the Common Agricultural Policy over the last ten years and the UK continued to push for further change. However, the UK was at the most liberal end of EU opinion on this and it was pushing against those who wanted the highest subsidies possible.

Rt Hon. Rebecca Kadaga MP (Uganda) expressed concern about the UK moving its visa offices. The UK visa office in Uganda had recently been moved to Rwanda and it now took Ugandans about two months to get a visa. Many children had missed school and many people had lost money as a result. She asked why the UK had moved its office to a country that was not even in the Commonwealth.

Martin Reynolds replied that he was not involved in visa policy so unfortunately did not know enough about the area to comment. There had been an organisational push to reduce the number of visa issuing areas. As far as he was aware this had been driven by a desire for greater efficiency.

Hon. Mathew Nyuma MP (Sierra Leone) said that Sierra Leone was unable to sell its fishing produce to the EU unless it had been packaged in the Ivory Coast or

89

Senegal. He questioned whether this was fair trade and asked why Sierra Leone’s products had been banned.

Martin Reynolds said that he imagined it was to do with licensing of the plants, but that delegates should ask the Commission about this.

Hon. Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed MP (Malaysia) asked about the EU’s stance vis- à-vis ASEAN. He also asked about the role of the EU Ambassador to Malaysia. The Ambassador had recently been quite vocal in his political comments. This contradicted the EU’s purpose as an organisation to promote trade.

Martin Reynolds explained that the EU had regular meetings with ASEAN in a troika format, including discussions on a Free Trade Agreement. Until now, Heads of European Commission Delegations, including that to Kuala Lumpur, were there to deliver Commission policy. This policy varied from country to country. For example in Malaysia the focus might be on trade and the exchange of information. In other countries it might be significant spending programmes – for example development projects in Ukraine connected to the European Neighbour Policy. The Lisbon Treaty had brought together delivery of Council and Commission policy. From 1 December the Heads of European Commission Delegations would engage more in foreign policy alongside bilateral Ambassadors. The case Hon. Mohamed had raised was a sign of the way things were going.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) asked how the EU differentiated between bilateral and EU development projects when selecting projects. Member States, of course, also contributed to the latter. He also asked for clarification of the percentage of aid provided by the EU and asked whether the 60% figure previously quoted included European countries outside the EU.

Martin Reynolds replied that the figure only included the EU. The exact figure was 57% of global development assistance. The UK delivered its aid bilaterally and multilaterally, through the European Commission and the World Bank. About 20% of the European Commission’s aid budget came from the UK contribution and 20% of the UK’s aid budget went to the Commission. This was why the UK was keen to make EU aid as effective as possible. The advantage to the UK of contributing to the EU’s aid budget was that it enabled the UK to contribute to a much larger pot, the spending of which it was able to influence. Contributing to the EU’s aid budget also provided a lot more coherence. A further advantage was that the Commission had a presence in many countries in which the UK did not, for example Francophone Africa.

In relation to rules for aid projects, the UK had one approach and the Commission had another. The Commission was slightly more bureaucratic, reflecting a nervousness about its responsibility for Member States’ money and a desire to demonstrate effective use of this budget, not least due to a past history of poor management. Member States also expected oversight of their money so the Commission had a number of management committees to give visibility to what the Commission was doing. Nation states did not have the same pressure on their bilateral aid spending. Co-ordination mechanisms were very important.

90

Mr Cedrick Thomas Frolick MP (South Africa) asked about the UK approach to reform of the WTO. He added that EPAs on the African continent had continued to impact on collective bargaining power.

Martin Reynolds said that he was not aware of any real discussion on reform of the WTO. The focus was currently on Doha, but in general the UK was keen to promote developing countries so the UK would be likely to be supportive.

Hon. Abdul Halim Hussain MP (Malaysia – Penang) argued that the UK had a role in the Commonwealth as well as the EU and that countries wanted to see the UK playing a greater role in promoting trade. He also asked Mr Reynolds to comment on the criticisms expressed in the EU’s audit report. One issue was that some Member States did not want to invest in smaller countries.

When in London he had noticed that some retailers accepted Euros. He asked whether this was a sign that the UK was moving towards joining the Euro and asked about the likely timetable for this.

Martin Reynolds said that the Commonwealth and the EU were both very important organisations which the UK was proud to belong to. The difference between the two organisations lay in trade. The EU was a single market and the Commission negotiated on behalf of all Member States, so trade was desperately important in the EU. The Commonwealth did not negotiate trade deals for its members.

The audit report had dealt with finance. He expected some people in his building would know a lot about this but unfortunately he did not.

The UK was not committed to joining the Euro.

Hon. Abdul Halim Hussain MP (Malaysia – Penang) asked what difference the UK election would make to UKREP’s work.

Martin Reynolds said policy could always change.

Hon. Emmanuel Munaile MP (Zambia) asked why the UK, which was a member of the EU, did not accept Euros.

Martin Reynolds explained that Member States did not always act together in all policy areas. They did so on trade and the international market, but the UK, along with a number of other Member States, like Sweden, had not joined the Euro. Another example of opt-outs were transitional arrangements for accession countries – for example there had been agreements for transitional application of EU standards to nuclear power stations.

Hon. Ahmed Ibrahim MP (Ghana) said that the EU had integrated as a means of solving problems. He asked what assistance the EU was offering Africa to help it integrate.

Martin Reynolds replied that EU policy on integration was basically directed towards Europe and the enlargement process. The offer of EU membership was of

91 course only open to European countries. The EU had a very important relationship with the African Union and the Commission spent a lot of resources on trying to assist the AU. The Commission and the EU had offered support to parts of the world going through similar processes of integration but ultimately this was for African states to decide. The EU could help, but only once and if it received a clear signal that this is what Africa wanted to do. If the EU was to offer the AU a blue print, the reaction in Africa would be, quite rightly, hostile.

He thanked delegates for the opportunity to speak to them.

92

Session 3 - UK ENGAGEMENT WITH EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Speaker: Mr Paul Heardman, Head of European Parliament Section, UKREP

Mr Paul Heardman, Head of European Parliament Section, UKREP, explained that his role in UKREP covered relations between the UK Government and the European Parliament. The European Parliament was a central institution in the EU and it was therefore necessary for the UK Government to deal regularly with Members of European Parliament (MEPs) to persuade them to take particular courses of action. Every day he was talking to MEPs, not just from the UK but from all Member States. There were 736 MEPs in the European Parliament in total and only 72 of these were from the UK. It was therefore necessary to persuade non-UK MEPs of the Government’s thinking.

The 72 UK MEPs belonged to different political parties: Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, nationalists from Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and, since the last election, two from the British National Party. Mr Heardman and UKREP maintained close relations with Labour MEPs because the Labour Party was in Government. However, UKREP also dealt regularly with MEPs from other UK parties. In fact, Conservative MEPs could sometimes be more helpful to UKREP than Labour MEPs.

The European Parliament held meetings in both Brussels and Strasbourg. This was not an entirely logical arrangement but the EU treaties (last updated by the Lisbon Treaty) stated that the European Parliament must meet once a month in Strasbourg. This arrangement cost about €200 million, additional greenhouse gas emissions, and time. However, the treaty laws could not be changed unless all Member States agreed and the French Government did not want to change the Strasbourg arrangement. Most MEPs did not like travelling to Strasbourg, the public did not like it and it damaged the reputation of the European Parliament in general. It illustrated that solutions were not always entirely logical when you had a body comprising 27 very different countries.

UKREP had about 150 staff. They were mostly British civil servants who had come from their home ministries to stay in Brussels for three to four years. So, for example, the UKREP Transport Section were Department for Transport civil servants. UKREP staff covered all the policy areas that the EU was involved in: trade, environment, labour standards, and so on.

UKREP had three main functions: 1. to be the eyes and ears of the British Government. This involved talking to the Commission, MEPs and others. UKREP could provide “early warning” to the British government about developments in Brussels. Every day UKREP was sending back lots of information to colleagues in London. 2. lobbying and negotiating. On Thursday this week a summit was to be held with the Heads of State of EU Member States. Regular meetings were also held between ministers from Member States responsible for certain policy areas and, below this, even more regular meetings were held by officials from Member States to prepare for ministerial discussions.

93

3. giving advice to London on how to achieve the UK’s objectives. For example, if the Prime Minister wanted to deliver a certain policy, UKREP could advise who might be allies within the EU and how easy it might be to achieve the policy.

The EU framework, as set out in the EU treaties, could best be described as a triangle, consisting of the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The role of the Commission was to propose new ideas for legislation and to produce legislative drafts. It was the unique responsibility of the Commission to propose legislation. The Commission was managed at the political level by Commissioners, who were appointed by the national governments. The British Commissioner was Baroness Ashton. The Commissioners were not accountable to Member States: they were virtually independent once appointed (although they had to abide by the rules of the EU). This was to ensure that the Commissioners were not subject to national lobbying: otherwise, the Commission would become just another Council of Ministers.

The Commission also had an important role to make sure legislation was being enforced within the Member States. This involved ensuring no loopholes were being exploited. The Commission could set very high penalties if Member States were found not to be implementing EU legislation. For example, in the 1990s following the BSE crisis, the French government refused to accept British beef even after British beef was deemed safe again. The British government took the French government to court and EU law found in Britain’s favour. The Commission also possessed wide powers when negotiating on behalf of the EU, for example in the area of trade.

The Commission’s legislation went to both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, similar to the system in the United States. Legislation could not be adopted until both assemblies had agreed on it. In the European Parliament much of the legislative work took place in committees. There were first reading and second reading stages and if, at the end of the process, both sides still did not agree the legislation “died”. In practice, however, this very rarely happened. Usually a compromise was reached and the Commission’s proposal was adopted.

Mrs Leanne Rowat MLA (Canada-Manitoba) asked whether EU legislation was singular or whether it could be adapted to different Member States.

Mr Heardman said that it depended on the type of legal instrument used. An EU regulation, for example, was instantly binding on all 27 Member States. Regulations were often used in the field of competition. EU directives, on the other hand, were more general. They often established principles which all Member States had to implement at the national level. This process usually took longer because the directive had to be applied by all 27 Member States and it normally took two years for implementation alone. Some countries had a reputation for implementing directives quite quickly, and others less so. If a Member State implemented a directive too late, it would be penalised by the Commission.

Hon. Peter Nyombi MP (Uganda) commented on the fact that UKREP officials dealt regularly with both Labour and opposition MEPs. He asked whose instructions UKREP took when the UK government and opposition disagreed on an issue.

94

Mr Heardman said that everything was decided by the British Government in London. UKREP were British civil servants and it was their role to deliver ministers’ political priorities. In the European Parliament politics came into play in many different ways and it was necessary for UKREP to take tactical decisions to find allies when a minister made a decision. Sometimes Labour MEPs disagreed with UKREP who were following Labour Government policy. If opposition MEPs agreed then UKREP would work with them in order to further the interests of the UK Government. The European Parliament differed somewhat from the House of Commons: the Commons could be adversarial but there was a very different culture in the European Parliament. There was less of a confrontational approach in the European Parliament, which was partly due to the fact that no party could ever hold a majority. More coalitions and consensus-building took place in the European Parliament compared to British politics.

Hon. Beatrice Rwakimari MP (Uganda) asked whether the European Parliament had the same functions as national legislatures, in terms of oversight, budget authority, having a Speaker, and so on.

Mr Heardman said the European Parliament was similar to national legislatures in some ways, but not in others. In many countries national parliaments formed the basis for determining the executive. The EU structure was different: the Commission was appointed by the prime ministers in each Member State. The European Parliament was really a unique body. MEPs were directly elected and they held joint budgetary authority: each year the Commission proposed a budget and the European Parliament had to agree it. The European Parliament did have supervision powers: for example, MEPs frequently wrote letters to the Commission and to the Council to ask about policy issues, to which the Commission and Council had to respond. Also, a “question time” session with the European Commissioner, Mr Barrosso, had recently been introduced, where he answered the questions of MEPs. This was a sign that Parliament was taking its scrutiny role more increasingly seriously. The European Parliament’s powers had increased massively over the past 30 years and it now possessed many of the same powers as national parliaments.

Smt. Veljibhai Jat Poonamben MP (India) asked which law was most important— UK law or EU law.

Mr Heardman said the EU Court of Justice was the most important court in the hierarchy of courts. EU institutions could take each other to court. Below the EU Court of Justice, a second European court existed that dealt with more technical issues. All countries signed up to the primacy of EU law as part of their terms and conditions upon acceding to the union. National courts could also apply EU law.

Mr Nawab Abdul Ghani Talpur MP (Pakistan) asked for further details about the Council, including how it worked, how it was elected, how many times it met a year and about its accountability.

Mr Heardman explained that the Council was just another word for national governments. Each representative had been elected through the normal procedures in their own countries. The Council met in many different formations, perhaps 11 or 12

95

different formations, for example transport ministers or health ministers. The representatives were always the ministers in charge of that policy issue within their own Member States. The Council was therefore accountable to the electorate in their own countries.

Miss Cynthia Y Forde MP (Barbados) said that moves were now beginning to create a Caribbean single market where there would be freedom of movement and trade. She asked how long the Europeans had been working at this union and when did it start.

Mr Heardman said the first union happened in 1958 and was based on coal and steel. The springboard for the single market, however, happened in the late 1980s and early 1990s. A “big bang” of regulation for the single market happened in 1992.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) said that there was much debate within the UK at the moment concerning immigration and how to manage the skills-base to provide employment for UK-born people. He asked how the EU dealt with these kind of issues.

Mr Heardman said this was a complex area and EU co-operation was only part of the story. It was common for concerns about jobs and unemployment to increase in a recession. The current Government’s approach was to invest in skills and opportunities, for example through a stimulus package that created “green jobs”. Historically there were political tendencies that aimed to exploit these concerns, and there were no easy answers.

Hon. Paul Tse Wai-chun MP (Hong Kong) asked for further details about how regulations and laws were agreed by the European Parliament and the Commission: for example, did it happen by simple majority.

Mr Heardman said that, in essence, under the Lisbon Treaty most of the legislation that the EU agreed was adopted using the qualified majority voting (QMV) procedure. Very few areas now remained that were decided on the basis of unanimity, which was difficult to achieve with 27 countries. QMV was essentially a weighted majority, with each country holding a number of votes relative to its size and population. In reality the Council usually agreed by consensus and there was generally quite a high level of goodwill, trust and co-operation between countries. Sometimes a country might find it difficult to support a piece of legislation because of technical difficulties in implementing that legislation at home. Often final practical solutions were found that enabled most countries to agree with things. In Brussels the British Government was mostly on the winning side of arguments, because they had negotiated well. Votes were still sometimes held in the Council but it was quite rare. Countries sometimes still voted against a proposal out of principle, even if they knew they would lose. In the European Parliament a simple majority was used at the first reading stage. This meant that more yes votes were needed than no votes, regardless of the number of MEPs who had voted. In the second reading stage an absolute majority was required: 50% plus one from all 736 MEPs needed to vote for it to count.

Mr Teburoro Tito MP (Kiribati) asked how a “European” country was defined.

96

Mr Heardman said there were a range of different views within the EU about this question. The Berlin Wall came down in 1989 which had unified Europe. Turkey was keen to join, and this was considered as very important bridge to other countries. Ukraine was also keen to join.

97

Session 1 - WELCOME ADDRESS

Speakers: Mr Charis Xirouchakis, Head of Unit: Visits, Economic and Social Committee

Mr Charis Xirouchakis said that it was a pleasure to welcome delegates to the building which was shared by the European Commission, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.

Often people forgot to take pride in what had been achieved by the EU. The EU’s venture towards integration had started ten to fifteen years ago, so it was facing a juvenile, rather than a midlife, crisis. If you looked at sub-Saharan Africa, where Mr Xirouchakis had previously worked as a development officer, or at ASEAN or MERCOSUR you could see that in a globalised world it was vital to network in order to meet challenges.

There had been two phases in Europe. In the first phase, that of the pre 1950s, Europe had been a battleplace. The second half of the last century was marked by an experiment in developing common values and cultures.

In order to work together, install and adhere to legislation, establish a Treaty and modernise the EU needed instructions. The EU was now at a crux. The continent had integrated – indeed in the last few weeks it had celebrated the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Politically and economically it was integrated to a large extent. The question was now how to manage the integrated EU. In one sense it seemed unimaginably difficult, particularly now, since in a crisis people tended to act selfishly.

The Economic and Social Committee existed to provide a forum where key players - employers, trade unions and now NGOs - could meet for common dialogue. In the 1950s there was no such provision. The Committee had filled this gap – initially providing a structure for employers and trade unions, and later adding NGOs, as the EU became increasingly less industrial and more service orientated. (NGOs were society at its best). The Committee did not have a very high profile, unlike the European Parliament or Commission, but it played a very important role.

The European Council brought together leaders, as the EU was ultimately an intergovernmental, rather than federal, project. The EU’s globalised agenda was managed by the Commission and decision-making was done by the Council and European Parliament, with organised society giving advice.

The EU also had other important bodies, including the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, which provided accountability for the taxpayer, and the Committee of the Regions.

The Economic and Social Committee had 344 members and had a matrix structure. It was made up of three basic groups – employers, trade unions and NGOs. These were divided into six sections, including agriculture, the environment and climate change, and external relations. Every country sent its own representatives to participate in the

98

Committee and shape its opinions. These opinions were then sent to the European Parliament, Commission and Council.

The Committee did have an impact. A study had shown that of the 150 opinions the Committee issued every year, 81% had been implemented into EU legislation. Its voice was not as large as other institutions, but it did its best to feed grassroots opinion into EU legislation.

The brochure which some delegates had picked up, explained how the Committee was organised. There was also a leaflet available, Discover the ESC, which had easy writing and was aimed at a young audience. Delegates might want to take this home for their children.

Mr Xirouchakis was trying to increase cooperation between the Commission and the Economic and Social Committee on visits.

Hon. Paul Wai-chun Tse MP (Hong Kong) asked about the EU’s budget and the level of Member State contributions.

Mr Charis Xirouchakis said that his Committee was increasingly preoccupied by the EU budget, which was unchanged from the previous year. The budget was voted on by the European Parliament and the EU’s expenditure was scrutinised by the Court of Auditors. The Economic and Social Committee was increasingly organising conferences to discover what grassroots opinion, for example Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), thought about the budget.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) asked what had changed in EU politics since the economic crisis. Brown, for example, had been talking about a tax on executives’ salaries. He also asked how the EU related to the G20.

Mr Charis Xirouchakis replied that delegates would not see a better grassroots view than that of the Economic and Social Committee. The Committee had submitted several opinions on the economic crisis. The main concern was the threat to employment and the EU had done a lot of work on this. The EU now had a very simple choice: to integrate into the globalised world or risk losing money and becoming irrelevant.

Rt Hon. Rebecca Kadaga MP (Uganda) asked Mr Xirouchakis to elaborate on his comments about the EU moving away from the industrial sector to the service sector. He also asked about the impact of nationalism on the EU.

Mr Charis Xirouchakis replied that Mitterrand had said that nationalism was war. Mr Xirouchakis came from Crete. He felt able to call himself Cretian in his outlook on local matters, Greek in education and upbringing and European in outlook and values. There was no contradiction in all of these.

Countries like China, India, Brazil and Russia were leading in industry but technology would lead the way in the future and Europe was focusing on that.

He thanked delegates for their attention.

99

Session 4 - INTRODUCTION TO THE ORGANISATION AND WORK OF THE EU’S INSTITUTIONS – THEIR ROLES AND FUNCTIONS

Speakers: Mr Jo Vandercappellen, member External Speakers Team

Mr Jo Vandercappellen said that his presentation would first explain what the EU was, including the political background to its formation, and that he would then explain what the Treaty of Lisbon was likely to change. For example, on Thursday the European Council would be nominating a President and High Representative. He began by asking delegates what they thought the EU was.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) suggested that it was a union of countries in Europe.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen urged delegates to be more specific. Most countries had Ambassadors to the EU because it was considered to be an international organisation from a legal point of view. It was certainly not a country. The EU worked partly like a classical European organisation – like NATO, if countries did not agree to something it did not happen. Afghanistan had been under the NATO flag while Iraq had not. There were similar intergovernmental elements in the EU. Member States had not taken a unanimous view on the recognition of Kosovo, for example, so each Member State had taken its own decision. On the Russian-Georgian question, the 27 Member States had arrived at a common position so the French President had visited Moscow to negotiate a peace deal on that basis.

The EU did, however, have a supranational character. Member States had had to permanently transfer some of their sovereignty or competences to the EU. This meant that they could not take certain decisions on their own. EU legislation could be directly applicable to them and there was an EU court which acted as a supreme court of justice. This supranational character was why Barroso assisted with the G7 and G20 summits. Member States could not take decisions on their own in relation to these issues.

The political debate in the EU over the Treaty of Lisbon had been exactly about which of these two opposing characters the EU should have – a community or supranational method versus an intergovernmental one.

Hon. Paul Wai-chun Tse MP commented that different countries would have had different views on this.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen agreed. He explained that the UK was very intergovernmental. This was because in Anglo Saxon countries sovereignty was very important and it was politically very difficult to be seen to be giving it up. Germany, on the other hand, was supranational. It was a federal state itself and therefore favoured such an approach for Europe. Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg also favoured a supranational EU. This was due to their geographical position – they had been the battlefields of Europe in Napoleonic times and during both World Wars and they wanted to see a very effective EU to safeguard against any future conflict. The Balkan States also favoured a strongly integrated state that could stand up to their neighbour Russia. France, like the UK, preferred an intergovernmental EU. However,

100

its desire to be involved at every stage of the EU so that it had inside influence meant that it was willing to compromise. If Member States were unwilling to compromise on sovereignty at all there would never be any agreement on anything. Looking at the financial crisis as an example, the UK wanted to retain control of financial institutions at a national level, but France and Germany were pushing for EU control. It was likely that the EU would end up somewhere in between these two positions.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) asked about Brown’s proposal for a Tobin tax.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen said that despite British views, Community pressure was for a supranational response to the financial crisis. The Commission would probably put forward a realistic compromise.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) commented that he was not British but Australian.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) asked why the UK was not part of Schengen.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen explained that it was not just the UK which was outside Schengen but Ireland also because of its passport agreement with the UK. Norway, Iceland and Switzerland were part of Schengen although they were not members of the EU.

The EU had many common policies and actions – in particular agriculture, trade and competition policy. In the mid 1990s environmental policy had also become important when countries like Sweden had joined. Now there was a development in the importance of border and energy security. The next Commission was likely to look at human rights and climate change. These actions would support national policies.

Under the European Monetary Union (EMU), 16 Member States had joined the Euro and transferred their financial controls to the European Central Bank. More Member States were likely to join the Euro over the next decade, although Poland’s entry, scheduled for 1 January 2012, would probably be delayed due to the current crisis. The ultimate goal was for all Member States to join the EMU, indeed it was a legal obligation as part of treaties and accession treaties, although the UK and Denmark had opt-out clauses.

He asked delegates whether any of them had dual citizenship.

Hon. David Osbourne MP (Montserrat) said that he had both a Montserrat and an EU passport.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen explained that EU citizens had a number of rights. The first of these was the right to vote in European elections. Another was the right to consular assistance. EU citizens could approach any EU Embassy abroad for help. This was a real advantage for Belgium, for example, which did not have diplomatic representation everywhere.

101

Hon. David Osbourne MP (Montserrat) agreed that EU citizenship brought certain rights. He, for example, had the right to work in a Dutch overseas territory because it was also part of the EU.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen added that these rights were as the result of treaties which had given EU citizens the rights to work, live, study and own property in other Member States.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) asked whether Britain had ratified all these treaties.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen emphasised that Britain was a full EU member. It had a few opt-out clauses, but it was not the only Member State to have such clauses. Ireland and Denmark, for example, also had opt-outs.

The Treaty of Lisbon was a reforming Treaty. It had a classical federal structure which set out what was at the European level and what was at national level, replacing previous pillars with lists of competences. There were exclusive competences, such as trade, competition policy, the EMU for Eurozone states and fishing. Then there was a longer list of competences shared with Member States, such as transport, energy and agriculture. (Many people assumed the latter was an exclusive competence – in fact it was only 95% an EU competence). The final list was of actions to support, complement and supplement the actions of nation states, such as Erasmus.

The European Commission was a very powerful body since it had a right of initiative. In Anglo Saxon circles, this appeared non-democratic but there were historical reasons for this right. In the 1950s and 60s the original idea was to integrate economically in order to integrate politically. A strong Commission was therefore wanted in order to stimulate integration. 45 years later this idea of economic integration was still supported despite the economic crisis. Some Member States also continued to favour political integration, although the UK would not support this.

At the early stages of the European Economic Community, six Ministers took decisions unanimously. In 1979 the European Parliament was established. The Treaty of Lisbon would now give the Parliament a lot more power. The European Parliament controlled the Commission – it had the power to dismiss the Commission and it could amend Commission proposals. The Council was the highest political body in the EU.

The Commission decided what the European Parliament and Council could consider and drafted the proposals. What happened depended on the nature of the decision, whether it was a legislative proposal or a policy decision. If agreed, legislative proposals became directives, which were legally binding and had to be implemented into national legislation. One example was the EU target to reduce carbon dioxide by 20% by 2020. (If there was global agreement, the EU was willing to go to 30%.) Directives set out Member States’ national targets as part of this overall target. If Member States did not want to enact directives, the Commission played a guardian of treaties role and could start an infraction procedure against the Member State at the European Court of Justice. It was also possible for individuals from the relevant

102

Member State to bring proceedings at this court, which had the power to override the decisions of national courts.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) asked whether the European Court of Justice was the same thing as the International Court of Justice.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen replied that it was not. The European Court of Justice was based in Luxembourg.

EU treaties were above national constitutions. The rulings of the Court of Justice had a general character which were then used to adjudicate similar cases. For example, the court’s ruling on football transfers had changed transfers in Europe for ever.

The second type of decision taken by the European Parliament and Council, on the Commission’s initiative, were policy decisions, such as reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. These then went back to the Commission to implement, since it had executive power, although this was limited by the subsidiarity principle, that policies should be decided and implemented at the lowest level possible. The Commission had to prove added value. If Member States did not agree, they could go to the Court of Justice.

The Commission also sent its proposals to national parliaments who were able to advise on whether the proposals violated subsidiarity or proportionality. The Netherlands, the UK and Poland had wanted the power of veto for national parliaments, but the right of the Commission to have power of initiative was a red line for other Member States.

The EU had approved financial rescue plans. The banks that had benefited had now been forced to downsize in order not to distort competition. ING, for example, had had to sell off its insurance division in order to reduce its balance sheet by 20-40%.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) asked whether there were processes in place by which a country could leave the European Union.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen explained that from 1 December, as part of the Treaty of Lisbon, there would be a procedure to leave. The Member State would have to inform the Council of their desire and they then had two years from this notification date to negotiate their exit. A departing Member State would of course have to take on the disadvantages of leaving – EMU states would remain part of the Euro, but they would no longer have any influence in World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations – their interests would no longer be taken into account.

Hon. Peter Nyombi MP (Uganda) asked what the object of integration was.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen explained that after World War II a decision had been taken to share governance over coal and steel, which was the main source of conflict between France and Germany. The main aim therefore was to promote peace. It was now unthinkable that Belgium could be attacked by Britain, France and Germany, but this was very much the case 100 years ago. The EU was now considering how to maintain its economic position, how to fight climate change and so on. These were

103

issues that could not be solved at national level. The Netherlands was too small to negotiate at the WTO on its own, but it could protects its interests via the EU.

Hon. Beatrice Rwakimari MP (Uganda) asked what strategies were in place for EU cooperation with other countries.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen replied that the world had evolved from a unipolar to a multipolar world. The Commission negotiated on behalf of the EU at the WTO. The EU had agreements with the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States) countries. The world also had MERCOSUR and ASEAN.

Hon. Beatrice Rwakimari MP (Uganda) asked about Africa.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen explained that the ACP countries were from Africa, as well as the Caribbean and the Pacific. Development was a very important part of the EU.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) asked whether there was any scope for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

Mr Jo Vandercappellen said that a lot was in a name. There had been a proposal to rename the EU the United States of Europe. At this point the UK had threatened to leave negotiations.

Hon. Abdul Halim Hussain MP (Malaysia-Penang) said that there were concerns in Asia and elsewhere that the EU was becoming an exclusive club. He asked why integration could not take place via the United Nations. Asia viewed the EU with concern about trade blocs and protectionism.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen said that the UN was about international cooperation, not integration. The idea behind the EU was to improve integration.

Hon. Paul Wai-chun Tse MP (Hong Kong) asked whether there was a trend for the world to become an international union, with countries ceasing to have sovereignty in order to reduce conflict. If so, the EU might be a good model to follow.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen replied that it could be a model for Latin America, where MERCOSUR already existed. There was also ASEAN in Asia. Additionally, there was a possibility of an integrated African Union, although this was not for him to judge. The world was multipolar and the fact that the EU favoured international relations should not be forgotten. The Member States coordinated with the UN via the EU.

Hon. Michel Marie MNA (Seychelles) asked about the impact of a potential Conservative government in the UK on the EU. He also asked about EU Ambassadors.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen said that he could not comment on the UK political landscape. Fundamentally whatever the Government in the UK, it would still be part of the Council so there would be no change, although the UK might change its position in a number of areas. The Leader of the Opposition in the UK, David

104

Cameron, had said before ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by the Czech Republic that he would have a referendum but now there did not seem to be a point. Renegotiating the Treaty was unrealistic - he would not get any support from other Member States. His comments were simply about pleasing the electorate.

The Treaty of Lisbon had four elements on external relations. The EU would be given a legal personality – at the moment only the European Community had a legal personality – for example, it was the member of the WTO. Now the EU would be able to sign international agreements in the areas of CFSP (Common Foreign and Security Policy) and justice and home affairs, and it could become a member of international organisations. The UK had added a declaration that this should not undermine the UK’s position on the UN Security Council, but it was now a legal possibility for the EU to become a UN member.

There was also a solidarity clause in the Treaty, explicit in the case of terrorist attack, natural or man-made disaster. Some had interpreted this as Article 5 of the NATO treaty, that is solidarity in case of an attack on a Member State.

The third change in external relations under the Lisbon Treaty was that the High Representative would become a political role. The High Representative would preside over the Foreign Affairs Council and represent the EU in the world. The fourth element was the creation of an external diplomatic service – a Commission delegation and an international diplomatic service which would have 4-6,000 diplomats.

The Lisbon Treaty would not change the situation on policy where there had been a rift, like Iraq, but the High Representative could call meetings of Member States and try to persuade them on a joint course of action.

Defence was a national matter, but if nine of more Member States wanted to they could set up a common defence force. This picked up the common European defence project of the 1950s.

Mr Adam Giles MLA (Australia – Northern Territory) asked if the establishment of such a force could be blocked by other Member States.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen said that it could not if there were nine Member States wanting to do so.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) asked what the quorum was.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen said that it was nine.

Mr Teburoro Tito MP (Kiribati) said that the relationship between the EU and the Pacific was not on an equal footing, particularly where there were lots of conflicts of interest like trade. Previously preferential trading used to be good, now there was less and less of this for ACP countries.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen said that the Commission could present a project but it was up to Member States to take decisions and they tended to prefer their own interests.

105

The shift away from preferential trading was framed within the WTO negotiations which had increased pressure on this.

Mr Teburoro Tito MP (Kiribati) commented that one of his country’s islands had been named Belgium by a Belgian priest. He noted that Belgium hosted all the EU structures and asked what impact they had on the Belgian economy.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen responded that they had a very positive impact. The EU institutions were based in Brussels because after World War II, the government in Brussels made great efforts to drag other governments there. The decision to set up in Brussels had been taken in 1991 at Maastricht. International institutions in Brussels now made up 2.5% of the country’s GDP. By comparison agriculture made up 0.8%.

Mr Stuart Farrow MP (South Africa) said that it appeared that certain countries had more seats but smaller voting allocations than others.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen replied that the current framework was established by the Treaty of Nice. It would be changed again by the Lisbon Treaty. There would now be 751 MEPs, 96 from Germany, 74 from France, 73 from the UK and Italy, down to Malta with 6. These seats were based on population. At the Council Member States represented their own interests. A number of decisions had to be unanimous. A veto was possible but only where justified – a Member State could not block everything. The Lisbon Treaty got rid of the veto in 40 areas of policy.

Qualified majority voting (QMV) worked with weighted votes in the Council of Ministers. It was based on population but also a negotiated number arrived at by horse-trading. Some Member States were unhappy with this – for example Poland and Spain had 10% less votes than Belgium which had a far lower population. In 2017 this system would be replaced by a population based system of double majority (55% of Member States representing 65% of the EU population). This was intended to protect smaller states and would be used in the majority of votes. It meant that, little by little, the EU was evolving into a bicameral system – the Parliament directly elected and the Council a bit like a Senate. The political system was becoming more mature. It could not be compared with the UN – it was much more similar to the United States.

Hon. Emmanuel Munaile MP (Zambia) said that it seemed that any country could opt out of the EU if it did not agree to a proposal.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen denied that this was the case.

Hon. Emmanuel Munaile MP (Zambia) argued that Member States had a choice.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen said that there was a difference between negotiating a treaty and changing a constitution. Lisbon set opt outs in some areas, but there was no opt out for the rest. There were now nearly 8000 directives, with no question of Member States choosing not to apply them.

Hon. Emmanuel Munaile MP (Zambia) asked for an explanation of how voting worked in the European Parliament, including whether it was by name.

106

Mr Jo Vandercappellen replied that it was by name. Directives were agreed by co- decision. Once they passed Parliament and Council they were adopted.

Hon. Trish White MLA (Australia – South Australia) told delegates that a recent article in the Financial Times had suggested that there would now be even less women in the Commission and that not one of the three top jobs would go to women. She asked whether this was the case and if so, whether it was a concern.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen said that it was a concern. Part of the problem was that it was up to Member States to nominate names to the three big posts (the President of the Council, the High Representative and the Secretary General, a very important but administrative post).The political and geographic balance suggested that the role of President would probably go to Western Northern Europe – since the President of the European Parliament was a Pole and Barroso was from the South. David Miliband and Paddy Ashdown had been suggested as nominations for the High Representative but everyone would have to see on Thursday what decision was actually taken. Barroso could ask Member States to nominate women or set a quota but so far he had not.

Only a third of the current Commission were women, and this was the Commission with the most females to date. Scandinavian countries tended to send more women than men, but other Member States sent far less.

Mrs Kate Kamba MP (East African Legislative Assembly) asked what would happen if there was a conflict between individual and national constitutions.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen replied that all constitutional courts in Member States had already given a positive ruling to the Lisbon Treaty and that from 1 December the Treaty would therefore apply to all national constitutions.

Hon. Kwabena Darko-Mensah MP (Ghana) asked about the CFSP.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen said that it was an area of policy at intergovernmental level.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) commented that the EU had a real border and asked about Turkey’s desire to join the EU.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen said that the fact that it was called the European Union meant that there was a limit to enlargement. There were certain clear agreed borders like the Atlantic and the Mediterranean (Morocco had put in a request but it had never been taken seriously). Russia was also an obvious border. Ukraine and Georgia had asked to join, but this would depend on Member States. The Balkan States were eligible to join as were Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. Turkey however posed an interesting question. There were two good reasons to accept Turkey. The first was economic – Turkey had 70million consumers. The other was political – using enlargement to stabilise and integrate the country. However, there were a number of problems, the most serious being the fact that Turkey did not recognise Cyprus and that officially the whole of the island of Cyprus was an EU member. The EU position was that the UN resolutions should be respected and that the Turkish presence in

107

Cyprus was illegal. Human rights, the law on Turkishness and migration were all also problems, although they could be solved. The size of Turkey was also an issue – with 70 million inhabitants, possibly 100 million by 2050, it would be bigger than Germany and France and would therefore get more seats. For this reason Berlin and Paris were opposed to Turkey joining the EU.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) said that subsidies were proving a real issue, with the EU accused of using them to gain a competitive advantage over less developed countries.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen asked for an example.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) mentioned the Common Agricultural Policy.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen said that there were many European funds, including the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund. These had objective criteria based on co-finance with national governments so he would be highly surprised if that was the case.

Mr Adam Giles MLA (Australia) asked whether the EU could raise taxes.

Mr Jo Vandercappellen said that it did not. Fiscal policy was an area which required unanimity. Income for the EU came from Member States, each paying according to their GDP. The budget was decided by 27 Member States in seven year programmes. Between 2007 and 2013 a budget of €862billion had been agreed, with an expenditure of €134.5 billion this year. There had been a suggestion of a European tax. But this was a very sensitive issue.

He thanked delegates for their questions and kind attention.

108

TUESDAY 17TH NOVEMBER 09

Session 1 – WELCOME

Speaker: Mr Jaime Andreu, Head of Unit: Visits to the Commission

Mr Jaime Andreu, Head of Unit: Visits to the Commission, welcomed the delegates. Mr Andreu said the delegates had arrived during a key week in Brussels: the Heads of State were meeting this week to appoint two new posts, the President and the High Representative, both of whom would represent the EU on the world stage. The President, however, would not have executive powers: the Lisbon Treaty said that the role of President was to facilitate consensus and coalition-building amongst Member States in the Council. The President would also provide external countries with a focal contact point. The High Representative was presumed to conduct the external policy of the EU.

Europe required a common policy if it wanted to be an important player in the multilateral international scene, and not only in foreign relations. The Copenhagen summit was a good example where a common EU position was necessary to address climate change.

Europe also needed a much better relationship with its neighbourhood countries, whether in the Mediterranean or ASEAN. From 1 December this year, the EU would be a legal entity.

109

Session 2 - BRIEFING ON TRADE

Speaker: Mr Ivano Casella, Economic and Trade Affairs Manager: Economic Partnership Agreements 2, Directorate-General for Trade

Mr Ivano Casella, Economic and Trade Affairs Manager: Economic Partnership Agreements 2, Directorate-General for Trade, said that the EU had exclusive competence regarding trade policy. The Commission could negotiate on behalf of Member States in trade agreements, although Member States had to agree with the final outcome. This negotiating role was important because the Commission had to partake in much bargaining and agree trade-offs.

The EU was a founding member of GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and the World Trade Organisation, which formed the structural basis for the EU’s trade policy. Multilateral trade policy was the cornerstone of the EU’s trade policy. However, the EU believed in the merits of bilateral and bi-regional agreements too, and had been establishing such agreements with several developing countries.

The EU had been very active over the last few decades in providing developing countries with different instruments to enable them to improve their trade. Several GSP (Generalized System of Preferences) schemes, for example, had been used. The GSP programme had been revised throughout the decades to try and focus on those countries that needed it most.

The case of ACP countries was more complex. There had been a steady decline in the share of ACP trade in the world. A set of unilateral preferential tariffs were in place, that were often duty-free, although the ACP counties had not used these measures as much as possible. The EU had decided to modify its approach to ACP countries, and suggested something radically different to the ACP countries. At the Cotonou conference a system of economic partnership agreements (EPAs) had been agreed. These were free trade agreements that would liberalise reciprocal trade. They were intended to be innovative and to better link the notion of development to the notion of trade.

The EU decided to focus first on regional groups and it had asked the ACP countries to re-organise themselves in sub-regions in order to negotiate the EPAs. The ACP countries had done, and the negotiations for the EPAs started in 2004-2005. The EPAs were now all at different stages of progress: some had been fully agreed (the Cariform group’s EPA was in the implementation stage), some were still in negotiation (such as the Southern Africa Development Community) and there were some “interim” EPAs (such as ESA, comprising of Madagascar, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mauritius). The cases of Central Africa and West Africa were more complex. So far, the EU had only negotiated with Ghana and the Ivory Coast in single-state agreements. Mr Casella hoped that the counties in these sub-regional groups would soon integrate themselves with the EPA process.

In terms of the Pacific countries EPAs were taking place with Fiji and Papau New Guineau, with the latter having already signed. The EU was therefore steadily putting together a framework of EPAs. They were not perfect or complete, some were only

110

partial, and in some regions only one country had signed. However, the idea was to establish a new trade relationship with its ACP partners and to better link the notion of development to the notion of trade. The hope was to make these countries more attractive markets for foreign investors.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) first asked whether the EU had any free trade agreements or whether they were all preferential. Second, he pointed out that big states usually dominated smaller states in negotiations and he asked whether the EU was providing resources to developing countries to enable them to bargain with the EU on equal terms. Third, he asked about the dangers of creating a “spaghetti bowl” with a series of bilateral agreements that did not fit with WTO priorities. Fourth, he asked whether the EU had used econometric modelling as part of its policy development.

Hon. Abraham Browne MP (Dominica) said that Dominica was a very small country with a population of 70,000. Dominican farmers believed they had received a very rough deal from the EU. Although the EU had been granting aid, there was still a perception that EU policies had encouraged poverty on the island. He asked for Mr Casella’s response.

Mr Casella said that the EU did have free trade agreements, for example with Mexico, Chile and South Africa. However, these were seen as “old generation” agreements as they had been negotiated 10 years ago. Back then the principle of preferential treatment was not as mature as it is now. The EU did provide resources to assist developing countries with their negotiating capability, for example Lesotho had benefited from the European Development Fund. On the other hand, an EPA had assisted Lesotho’s textiles industry by radically simplifying the trade rules for textiles. The EU therefore both provided financial assistance to smaller states to help them define their position and helped them gain direct benefits through the EPA. Referring to the “spaghetti bowl”, Mr Casella said that the real thing that undermined the WTO was when these types of agreements were not substantially liberalising on trade. For example, China and other countries had been negotiating PTAs (Preferential Trade Agreements) between themselves which were only liberalising the minimum of tariff levels. These kind of actions undermined WTO principles. Econometric modelling was used but the studies sometimes produced different results. What mattered more than econometric modelling was what the trade partners really wanted, and to have a dialogue.

Responding to the suggestion that the EPA was a bad deal and encouraged poverty in developing countries, Mr Casella said that all EPAs included aid and had components that dealt with development. He disagreed with the conceptual linkage the delegate was making between the EPA and poverty in Dominica.

Mr Nawab Abdul Ghani Talpur MP (Pakistan) asked about the EU’s trade relationship with Pakistan.

Mr. Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdbury MP (Bangladesh) asked whether any EPAs were in place with countries in south-east Asia. He also asked to what extent the EU addressed non-tariff barriers.

111

Mr Stuart Farrow MP (South Africa) asked whether there were moves towards the EU phasing out subsidies for agricultural production, to enable everyone to compete on a level playing field.

Mr Casella said that some countries, such as Pakistan, were dealt with using GSP, which set social and labour standards. GSP, however, had limited merits and it was necessary to develop the trade relationship to be more mature.

Mr Casella explained that the EU was considering establishing new free trade agreements (FTAs) with south-east Asian countries. An FTA had recently been launched with India but it was usually more difficult with Asian countries. Bangladesh was a good example of a country with processing capabilities: they were able to produce textile products without moving to outsourcing.

Mr Casella said that non-tariff barriers were considered as part of FTAs. EPAs also had provisions on the technical barriers to trade. The EU tried to take account of these in advance of negotiations. It was likely that FTAs would have to tackle technical barriers more in the future.

Mr Casella agreed that internal aspects within the EU had resulted in subsidisation of European agriculture. However, it was a WTO commitment to phase out subsidisation of agriculture to enable the EU to negotiate with WTO partners on a more equal level. It was very difficult to phase out subsidisation simply within a bilateral framework.

Hon. Michel Marie MNA (Seychelles) asked whether the growth of China might have an undermining influence on EPAs with developing countries. He also asked about the deadline for concluding EPAs.

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) noted that the Lisbon Treaty gave the European Parliament substantial rights of veto. She asked whether this right might impact on FTAs and whether it might now take many years to conclude the agreements. She also asked what was the EU’s current approach to bilateral agreements with ASEAN countries.

Hon. Abu Bakarr Koroma MP (Sierra Leone) said that Sierra Leone had not made any of these kind of trade agreements with the EU. He asked what advice Mr Casella would give the Sierra Leoneans about the benefits to be gained from such trade agreements

Hon. Alfreda Mwamba MP (Zambia) asked for further details about the Yaoundé, Lomé, and Cotonue conventions between the EU and African countries. He also asked why conclusion of trade agreements with the EU took so long to complete.

Hon. Trusty Gina MP (Swaziland) said that the EU provided assistance to sugar cane farmers in Swaziland. However, she asked why larger farmers usually received the money rather than smaller farmers.

Mr Casella said that the new roles of China and Africa on the world stage was very topical at the moment. However, Africa should not be perceived as being in competition with China in terms of EU focus. China had its own policies, and this

112

would not change the way the EU carried out its own policies. In terms of deadlines, the WTO initially set a deadline of 31 December 2007 to complete EPAs. In the end, this became a deadline for interim EPAs rather than full ones. There was no deadline for the full EPAs to be completed.

Mr Casella said he had little to say on the new veto power of the European Parliament. Both the Lisbon Treaty and the democratic principles of the EU were important. He acknowledged, however, that the veto power could make his life as an official more difficult. In relation to bilateral agreements, Mr Casella said the EU would negotiate on a bilateral basis if the EU could not reach agreement with ASEAN countries in full.

Mr Casella said he had already put forward the arguments for EPAs. EPAs emphasised the linkage between trade and development. There still lacked concrete evidence that proved an unilateral set of preferences were more favourable than bilateral agreements negotiated on an equal footing. The EPA was a radical policy and a mental shift for the EU. It was still difficult to get used to it.

Mr Casella said that plenty of material was publicly available about the Yaoundé, Lomé and Cotonue conventions. Each convention had contained different instruments to help the African countries concerned: Cotonou, for example, was the first convention that really helped regional economic communities. A main reason why the first phase of EPAs, from 2000 to 2004, had taken so long was because countries had to negotiate which sub-regional groups they wanted to belong to.

Mr Casella said that he had much experience of Swaziland. He was not aware of the details of the specific case referred to by the delegate but he was surprised if the situation they explained was the case. He wanted to look into the details in more depth before commenting. However, it was not the intention of the EU to create additional obstacles. It was the Government of Swaziland, with the EU, who decided how the money should be used.

113

Session 3 - PRESENTATION ON THE IMPACT OF THE FINANCIAL CRISIS ON DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WITH A PARTICULAR FOCUS ON ACP COUNTRIES

Speakers: Mr. Phillipe Latriche, Assistant to Director-General Manservisi, Directorate-General for Development and Relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific States

Mr. Phillipe Latriche, Assistant to Director-General Manservisi, Directorate- General for Development and Relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific States began by saying that the impact of the financial crisis had been central to political developments within Europe, and the EU had also tried to put this at the heart of its relationship with ACP countries. There were challenges that were shared by both EU and developing countries. Mr Latriche said, however, that his message was good for all developing countries.

Mr Latriche said his presentation focussed on three issues: the impact of the financial crisis, including financial, food price and climate change impacts; the measures taken by the EU to help developing countries cope with the crisis and what still needed to be done; and the main development challenges for 2010.

In terms of the impacts of the financial crisis, Mr Latriche said that developing countries had been affected much more severely than had been expected. They had been mainly affected in the so-called “second wave” of the financial crisis. All developing countries had been hit very hard, either directly (in terms of financial impact) or more indirectly through the slow-down in the world economy. Net private capital flow to emerging countries had been 7.3% of GDP in 2007, 4.9% in 2008, and was now expected to be close to zero in 2009. Sub-saharan Africa had experienced GDP growth of 6% last year; this was expected to be 1-1.5% this year. The crisis had impacted on commodity prices, the terms of trade, export revenues and remittances (there had been a 10-15% reduction in remittances to developing countries).

There had also been social impacts on developing countries. The World Bank had said that 90 million people could be put back into poverty, which would be a strain on public finances. This was already occurring in Europe. The financial crisis could unravel several years worth of progress in important policy areas, such as education and health. It was clear, therefore, that the impact of the financial crisis on developing countries could be very harsh.

Second, Mr Latriche commented on the measures the EU had taken to help developing countries to cope with the crisis, and what still had to be done. The Commission had made it clear since last year that it was not possible to simply continue on a “business as usual” basis and it had been promoting stronger messages in this time of crisis. In April 2009 a funding package was completely re-shaped to focus directly on how to help developing countries cope with the financial crisis. There was now an increased focus on aid effectiveness. Both the Commission and individual Member States had been trying to promote a coherent development policy, and to co-operate better, so as to obtain the absolute best value-for-money possible for aid. This aid effectiveness was all the more important in times of crisis. The EU- Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund was also very important. €500 million for the fund

114

had been implemented through the European Investment Bank. The EU had committed a further €500 million through the Vulnerability FLEX instrument; by September, about half of this amount had been committed in 17 countries and the rest was to be invested in 2010. There was also a €1 billion food facility out of the European budget, which would be spent in 2009-11. In terms of climate change, the EU—through the Global Climate Change Alliance—had entered into bilateral policy dialogues with those developing countries most affected by climate change. EU Member States contributed through the G20 too.

The EU had tried to react to the crisis as efficiently as possible. However, the EU still had much to do to assist developing countries cope with the crisis, both geographically and structurally. Geographically, the EU was currently discussing contractual agreements with developing countries about the priorities of development co-operation. As part of this, they were considering whether investment priorities needed to be shifted to those areas that required more assistance as a result of the financial crisis. Structurally, the EU were considering whether adjustments were required in relation to food policy, education and health objectives to better reflect the impact of the crisis.

Third, Mr Latriche discussed development challenges for 2010. Development policy needed to be considered as a central part of the Commission’s attempt to reply to global challenges. In 2010 there would be a need to return to the food facility and look at it in a more structural way. In health the EU was attempting to better combine internal and external policies. In September 2010 there would be a UN Millennium Development Goals summit which needed to be prepared for quantitatively, qualitatively and sectorally: quantitatively, in that donor countries needed to respect their ODA commitment; qualitatively, in that it was important to ensure that every euro spent was effective; and sectorally, to look at key sectors in terms of food, education and health. At the end of December 2010 the next EU-Africa summit would be held. There would be a move from a European strategy for Africa to a real joint EU-Africa strategy, and from donor relationship to a partnership.

Rt Hon. Rebecca Kadaga MP (Uganda) said she was very sceptical about EU assistance. She had been involved in discussions about the Infrastructure Trust Fund 10 years ago but nothing had happened. Both Uganda and Tanzania were still waiting for action, and not just talk

Hon. Abu Bakarr Koroma MP (Sierra Leona) said he had been surprised that developing countries had been so badly hit by the financial crisis. He asked what the EU was going to do to help developing countries recover.

Mr Cedrik Thomas Frolick MP (South Africa) noted that several European countries had resorted to nationalising banks during the crisis. He asked what measures the EU would put in place to ensure that Member States behaved more responsibly when dealing with international finance.

Mr Latriche said the Vulnerability FLEX instrument had provided €500 million of assistance, and €260 million of this amount had been committed by the end of September. Uganda or Tanzania, however, had not been beneficiaries of this scheme. 17 ACP countries had received €220 million of this amount, 12 of which were in

115

Africa. He did not have specific details about the Infrastructure Trust Fund investment but he said the information was all very transparent and publicly available.

Responding to the Sierra Leonean delegate, Mr Latriche said that the EU had tried to put concrete proposals on the table to assist developing countries cope with the crisis.

Mr Latriche said he was unable to answer what measures the EU would be putting in place to ensure the Member States behaved more responsibly financially. The EU had allowed Member States to exceed the 3% annual budget deficit limit stated in the Maastricht Treaty but this had been necessary to boost the economy. Member States had all responded differently to the financial crisis.

Mr Teburoro Tito MP (Kiribati) said he represented a Pacific island and he congratulated the Europeans for organising themselves in the way they had. He asked whether Mr Latriche would consider that such unions were the way forward for other regions.

Mr Md. Monwar Hossain Chowdbury MP (Bangladesh) commented that bilateral donor schemes usually took two to three years but EU schemes usually took much longer, often four to five years. He asked why the process took so long.

Mr Adam Giles MLA (Australia) commented that there were parts of Australia that were under-developed and required assistance. He asked whether the EU had a role in assisting under-developed regions in more developed countries.

Mr Latriche said that the EU had tried to promote a strategy for the Pacific region in recent years. The EU did try to deal with others at a regional level.

Mr Latriche said that the reason EU development agreements took so long was because the agreements had to go through various stages.

Mr Latriche said that the EU had an internal cohesion policy aimed at assisting under- developed parts of the union. Projects for both developing countries and internal regions were often very similar.

116

Session 4 - BRIEFING ON THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S WORK ON CLIMATE CHANGE – TO INCLUDE PREPARATIONS FOR COPENHAGEN, PROGRESS MADE UNDER THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AND THE EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME

Speakers: Ms Rosario Bento Pais, Acting Head of Unit, Climate Change Strategy and International Negotiations, monitoring of EU Action

Ms Rosario Bento Pais thanked delegates and said she hoped they had had a good morning so far. Climate change was a sensitive and important issue and she was happy to be talking to such an important audience about it.

Andrew Tuggy DL asked whether she was going to go to Copenhagen.

Ms Rosario Bento Pais said that she was going to Copenhagen. She was the deputy head of the Commission delegation and had led on the negotiations at Bali and attended all the negotiations so far.

Her presentation would cover progress on the road to Copenhagen, and what had happened in Barcelona and since. Two tracks had emerged from the Bali Action Plan – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change track and the Kyoto Protocol track. Both were running in parallel.

The emissions trading scheme did not form part of Ms Bento Pais’ unit but she would cover it indirectly in her comments on the international negotiations.

The Barcelona Climate Change Talks had taken place two weeks before. There was now no guarantee of success, that is a fully fledged treaty, at Copenhagen. Leaders across the world were now stating in press conferences that Copenhagen would be a stepping stone rather than an end. What would be achieved at Copenhagen would be a decision by the Conference of the Parties (CoP) about all the elements that should be in a treaty.

The EU’s ambition had not changed – it still wanted a treaty, agreed, if possible, in Copenhagen, although it did acknowledge that there had not been enough developments in the negotiations for this to be likely. The Convention track negotiating text was currently made up of 200 pages, and the Kyoto track 60 pages. Reducing this down to a maximum of 30 pages would be very difficult. Some countries, for example the United States, had not even come to the table with pledges yet. Some, such as Russia, Ukraine and Canada, had come forward with targets which were far behind the science. Russia had suggested a target of 10 – 15% of its 2005 levels which would actually mean 30% more than it had now.

The EU had followed the science in setting its target. Scientists had said that the maximum acceptable rise in temperature was two degrees. To remain within this developed countries would have to reduce emissions by 25 - 40% by 2020. Developing countries could continue growth but would need actions rather than targets to reduce emissions by 15 – 30% by 2020.

117

The United States was not part of Kyoto and had said that it would not ratify the Protocol. It believed domestic actions would be sufficient and that targets were not needed. However, climate change was a global issue and everyone had to contribute. Many delegates’ countries were already extremely vulnerable to climate change. If a treaty was not possible, agreement on all the elements to form part of the treaty were needed and these had to be very ambitious or else momentum would be lost.

Major developing countries had not changed their position on the framework. They preferred a Kyoto only outcome rather than an emphasis on the Convention. The EU believed that a single instrument was needed to cover both tracks, as, since the US had said it would not ratify Kyoto, there would otherwise be exceptionalism. The limits had been reached of what could be achieved by Kyoto alone. There had been strong G77 rhetoric on keeping Kyoto. Vulnerable developing countries were becoming worried by the delay to the Treaty, which would be between six months and a year leading up to Mexico. It was vital to ensure ambition was not lowered.

In Barcelona, there had been a lot of consolidation of text. There were now non- papers (papers with new negotiating text periodically released in order to assess progress and move things forward) based on the building blocks of the Bali Action Plan. The text had been stream lined. However, it would not be possible to arrive at one negotiating text instead of these papers.

The Kyoto Protocol track had been temporarily blocked by African countries as they had wanted targets of 40% for developed countries. Scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fourth Assessment Report) had said that targets of 25 – 40% would be enough, so an average of 30% would be sufficient. This was the EU position. The 24 hour block by the African countries had been a sign of how serious they considered climate change. They wanted 60% of negotiating time to be devoted to targets.

The EU had already committed to a 20% reduction from 1990 levels, independently of the outcome of Copenhagen and had said it would go to 30% if other developed countries did so. Very little progress had been made with respect to targets at Barcelona. There had been no new pledges from developed or advanced developing countries. The world was currently 70% short of the total needed, even including the EU pledge and the Bill currently before the US senate. Agreement was needed on the maximum temperature rise being aimed for. The IPCC had said two degrees was the maximum acceptable but the least developed countries were asking for 1.5 degrees as they were the most vulnerable and were already suffering.

Anti-carbon market rhetoric was increasing, with developing countries expressing doubt that it could deliver in terms of financing.

Progress had been made on the number and duration of commitment periods. It was likely that there would be either one five year or one eight year period. This was important for revisions. The EU favoured eight years, as it had adopted 2013 -2018 as its period and also because of the long procedure of decision-making in the EU. The US also had a long procedure.

118

Options had also been clarified in Barcelona, including on standardised baselines for the Clean Development Mechanism, improving regional distribution and convergence on the force majeure clause for forestry. She did not have time to go into more detail on these now.

Questions remained about global action including whether targets should be from 1990 levels and about global peaking.

Developing countries were being asked to have the ambition of 15 – 25% for the most advanced under what was known as nationally appropriate action. There was a role for income and efficiency. All countries should have low carbon development strategies or growth plans, which were the same thing. They needed to distinguish what they could do domestically and what they could not finance. An important building block for Bali was finance, the third building block. Without it there would be no agreement. There had been a lot of progress in Barcelona. Now there were three main questions. The first was what kind of institutions or funds would be used, new or existing. The second was the need to facilitate matching action and support. Matching was an issue of utmost importance. The final question was who paid what.

Adaptation was very close to the heart of the EU. It went hand in hand with mitigation – they were of equal importance. Adaptation needed to be addressed properly with finance, especially for the most vulnerable. Questions still needed to be decided on adaptation, including whether existing or new institutions would be used.

Technology and capacity building were also important – these were cross-cutting building blocks.

Denmark needed to step up its efforts to get a good outcome in Copenhagen. Bilateral and multilateral efforts were needed to sustain negotiations. There would be an informal ministerial meeting before Copenhagen. The Major Economies Forum (MEF) would not take place before Copenhagen, although there would probably be a meeting of Heads of State.

The EU had a carbon market. Between 2005 and 2007 it had been in phase one. The current phase, phase two, would last until 2012. This was working on the basis that allowances were a scare commodity and using a market strategy to gain profit. It had been a real success. Phase three was the shape of things to come. The EU wanted a real, transatlantic, global market and would be extending its market to OECD Member countries in 2015 and then to a full market in 2020. The carbon trading scheme had delivered significant income for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. It had started by focusing on the largest direct emitters, such as power generators and refineries, and would expand to other sectors for the third phase in 2013. The emission reduction path was fixed in law. There would be a 21% reduction in 2005 levels by 2020, and a transition to more than 50% of allowances being auctioned, with the profit used to finance migration and adaptation in developing countries.

The EU wanted to move to one carbon price worldwide. This was the key to increasing financial flows. The links between the EU and the US or Australia should be bilateral first but the vision was to achieve a worldwide agreement by 2012. The

119

EU’s Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) had been the first. The aim was to move to all economically advanced countries by 2012, including Hong Kong and China.

The Clean Development Mechanism would not deliver everything – the EU wanted a shift to the sectoral crediting system, evolving to a full carbon market by 2020.

Mr Kelvin Davis MP (New Zealand) said that a new government had recently been voted into New Zealand which was sceptical about climate change. He asked whether the country’s reputation had been damaged as a result. He also asked how the EU would respond to the argument that New Zealand only produced 0.02% of the world’s emissions and therefore did not need to participate in a climate change agreement.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) said that one of the criticisms of the carbon market in Australia was that prices would increase and traders would become millionaires but no one else would benefit. He asked whether it might be better to have an entirely separate market.

Mr Teburoro Tito MP (Kiribati) said that the view from the Pacific was that the EU would spend a lot of time and money creating new institutions when all that was needed was an agreement to consume less and not make too much profit.

Hon. Kipronoh Magerer Langat MP (Kenya) said that adaptation was the big issue. Green energy production was so costly that African countries would need a massive amount of money to adapt. He asked what was going to be done for Africa in Copenhagen.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) asked whether it was likely that the US would not sign up to Copenhagen either. Bangladesh and India were already suffering tsunamis and cyclones due to emissions. He asked if the US did not sign up to an agreement, what were the chances that it would reduce emissions.

Mr Stuart Farrow MP (South Africa) asked whether the UK had considered using African countries as a lobby force.

Hon. Emmanuel Munaile MP (Zambia) asked why huge resources were being spent on Copenhagen when there was no possibility of a final agreement there.

Hon. Beatrice Rwakimari MP (Uganda) asked why there had not instead been a focus on Millennium Development Goal Seven on environmental sustainability.

Ms Rosario Bento Pais emphasised that there would be progress in Copenhagen, it was just unclear at the moment if there would be a treaty or whether this would need an extra six months to a year to complete. There would be a Conference of the Parties decision that could be legally binding if it used terms like shall. The international community could be as ambitious as possible and include all elements in this decision. Only the treaty could not be guaranteed.

New Zealand was not seen as completely green – it was so small that its emissions should be small. However, it was not one of the worst offenders either. Climate

120

change was not an issue for individual countries, but an issue for everyone. It went beyond borders. Everybody had to participate. New Zealand was a developed country so it should participate and its emissions were still relatively large by comparison to per capita and land space.

There was increasing rhetoric on carbon markets because developing countries were afraid of the figures. They did not know whether it would deliver. Therefore the EU had put forward very concrete proposals and had in fact increased its GDP by 40% in 2008, while reducing emissions by 6.2%.

The EU’s position was that existing, rather than new, institutions should be used and she asked delegates to support the EU on this point.

Green energy was expensive – well at least parts of it were. However, once it was installed recurrent expenditure was much cheaper than non-renewable energy.

The EU had only one financial proposal – that €100 billion was needed for developing countries by 2020 for migration and adaptation. Most of this should be spent on renewable energy.

She did not want to imagine the US not signing an international agreement on climate change. If this happened the world would be in the same situation as after Kyoto. The US was the second biggest emitter. The EU had already made efforts and reduced its emissions. President Obama had made a very strong political commitment to an agreement and she did not think he would renege on this.

The Commonwealth provided a great opportunity to broach the needs of developed and developing countries. Climate change was a more global and urgent issue than even AIDs. Sea level and drought was increasing every day. All countries were being affected, but developing countries were suffering the most.

She thanked delegates for the invitation to speak to them.

121

Session 5 - WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION FROM THE VICE- PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Speakers: Vice-President Libour Roucek MEP Bill Newton Dunn MEP, Quaestor Anthony Teasdale, Deputy Head of the President’s Cabinet

Vice-President Libor Roucek MEP welcomed the delegates and sent apologies on behalf of the President of the European Parliament who was unable to attend the meeting. Mr Roucek said that the delegates may have noticed that various exhibitions were on display within the European Parliament building about the 20-year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Commemorations had also taken place last week to celebrate the end of the First World War. The European Union was based on overcoming these kind of differences and conflicts that had occurred within Europe in the past. After the Second World War it was agreed that European countries could no longer fight if they had a difference of view: differences needed to be resolved in a civilised way.

Elections for the European Parliament had been held in all 27 Member States in June this year. In total 736 MEPs had been elected. The countries with larger populations had more MEPs than others.

The Lisbon Treaty came into force on 1 December 2009. This would lead to more work for all the MEPs: for example, in the field of agriculture, there were changes regarding the Common Agricultural Policy budget. In the field of External Relations, a President and Minister of Foreign Affairs would be elected, and a new external diplomatic service created. These developments would impact on the work of the European Parliament, for example in the committees, and result in more intensive relations between the EU institutions.

European integration was a process; all 27 Members States had to agree for the integration process to be taken forward. There had been some difficulties with the Lisbon Treaty because some countries were looking for obstacles to slow down the integration process. With so many Member States compromises were often necessary, both within the Parliament but also with the other institutions. It could sometimes be tedious and lengthy but that was how the EU worked.

Mr Roucek said that he would be unable to stay for all the questions, but further questions about the European Parliament could be answered by Anthony Teasdale, who was a senior official in the personal office of the European Parliament President.

Hon. Alfreda Mwamba MP (Zambia) said that in several other national parliaments those Members in the majority formed the executive and the others were in opposition. This was not the case in the European Parliament and she asked whether this implied that MEPs were more or less the same.

Hon. Jinadasa Kitulagoda MP (Sri Lanka) said that Sri Lanka enjoyed the benefits of GSP+ status and was one of 15 countries in the world to get tax benefits. The GSP+ status was set to expire in 2011 and the war in the country had placed

122 international pressure on Sri Lanka. He asked what prospects there were for Sri Lanka to maintain its GSP+ status after 2011.

Mr Stuart Farrow MP (South Africa) asked who was responsible for holding accountable the delivery of EU aid.

Hon. Francis Kaboneka MP (Rwanda) asked what measures MEPs were taking regarding Rwandan Huti FDLR leaders conducting troop operations.

Mr Md. Monwar Hossain Chowdbury MP (Bangladesh) asked about Switzerland’s relationship with the EU.

Vice President Roucek said that, unlike the Westminster system, the EU was organised on a “triangle” basis including the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council. When the Council decided a policy, the Commission wrote the law and it was then sent to both the Parliament and Council. All three institutions had to agree the proposal for it to become law. Like other parliaments, the European Parliament was composed of political parties, such as the EPP, PES, the European liberals and the Greens. When topics were discussed in the Parliament, talks and discussions were held both between and within these political parties. However, it was true that there was not a government and opposition in the same manner as a Westminster-style arrangement.

Bill Newton Dunn MEP, Quaestor in the European Parliament, added that the EU was similar to the US system in that power was divided between three institutions.

Vice President Roucek said he knew Sri Lanka well and had first visited the country 30 years ago when the troubles in the country were starting. Now an opportunity existed to rebuild the country. Some similarities existed to the situation in Europe after the Second World War. There was now a hope to create lasting peace, and it had to be one that was based on civil and human rights. If Sri Lanka succeeded in this endeavour the country would have a great future. The EU and the European Parliament would like to help Sri Lanka with their expertise. In terms of the GSP+ status, it was too early to say what would happen because it was not set to expire until 2011.

Mr Newton Dunn said it was still too early to comment on Sri Lanka’s GSP+ status; the new Commission would have to make proposals on the matter.

Vice President Roucek said that the European Parliament did have an accountability role regarding the EU’s finance expenditure. The European Parliament had to vote in favour of the budget, which had occurred just two or three weeks earlier. There was also a budget control committee in the European Parliament.

Mr Newton Dunn said that the Commission had to explain to the European Parliament how it had spent its money at the end of each financial year. The budgetary control committee examined these kind of issues.

123

Mr Newton Dunn said he would table a question in the European Parliament concerning Rwandan FDLR troops. He also said that delegates were welcome to e- mail him with other questions which he was happy to table on their behalf.

Vice President Roucek said that Switzerland and Norway were not members of the EU. The governments had applied for membership but the citizens had voted against accession in referendums. Both countries were part of the Schengen system, which meant citizens could move to other EU countries without border controls. However, they were unable to take part in the decision-making process of the EU. Several other countries would like to join the EU, including Croatia, Turkey, Iceland and some countries in the Western Balkans.

Mr Newton Dunn said that Switzerland was a member of the United Nations, but not the EU. It still had an application resting on the table. There were a long queue of other countries that wanted to join the EU. This demonstrated that the EU was a success because the countries within the union lived in peace.

Vice President Roucek and Mr Newton Dunn thanked the delegates before leaving for other engagements.

Anthony Teasdale, Deputy Head of the President’s Cabinet, invited further questions from other speakers.

Hon. Abdul Halim Hussain (Malaysia-Penang) asked how ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) representatives could best ensure that the issues they considered important went through both the European Parliament and the Council.

Hon. Matthew Nyuma MP (Sierra Leone) asked what oversight the European Parliament had on defence matters.

Mr Nawab Abdul Ghanin Talpur MP (Pakistan) asked how many committees there were.

Shri Vijay Inder Singla MP (India) asked about the impact of the European Parliament on decision-making by the other EU institutions. He also asked whether the Council of Minsters always had representatives from every Member State.

Hon. Kwabena Darko-Mensah MP (Ghana) asked how voting occurred in the Council of Ministers. He also asked what was the best way to lobby the EU.

Hon. Emmanual Munaile MP (Zambia) asked how many times the European Parliament met in a year, and whether MEPs stayed in Brussels permanently. He also asked the amount needed for a quorum.

Mr Teasdale apologised on behalf of the President who was unable to attend the session. He said the European Parliament met in plenary session 12 times a year. These sessions were held in Strasbourg, not Brussels, so there were two parliamentary buildings. Mini-plenaries were held in Brussels. The reason for this arrangement was that there had been no building big enough to house the European Parliament, including all the necessary interpretation booths, when it was formed, except for the

124

Council of Europe building in Strasbourg. Now it was very difficult to get agreement from all Member States to change the arrangement.

Mr Teasdale said that the European Parliament was initially a consultative body but it had gradually built up its legislative powers in recent decades. For example, use of the “co-decision” procedure had now become the norm within the EU. There were now only a few areas where co-decision did not apply, for example in common defence policy. The European Parliament also had the power to dismiss the Commission. The European Parliament was therefore increasing as a force.

Mr Teasdale explained that voting did occur in the Council of Ministers. It used to be the case that unanimous agreement was required and so negotiations were driven by the need to find consensus. Unanimity was still required in some policy areas but there was now increasing use of qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council. Under this system the voting weights of different countries were important. These weights had to be adjusted every time the EU was enlarged but they were more or less consistent with the population and size of the various countries. Now a majority of about 65-70% of the population of the EU was required to agree proposals. The European Parliament had a similar voting system where there was a “floor” and “ceiling” in the amount of MEPs required. This meant that small countries did rather well out of the voting system; some of the larger countries did not think they were as well represented as they should be.

In relation to lobbying, Mr Teasdale said that all embassies would have relations with the Pan-African Parliament. There were lots of different tiers of parliamentary influence. Third countries tended to be very effective in getting their arguments into the policy debate via the media and think-tanks. It was effective to try and influence the broader EU framework, not simply to lobby individual Member States.

Mr Teasdale said the EU had no standing army. It was not some kind of NATO substitute and the EU was not a military alliance. Its approach was to use soft power rather than hard power. The Lisbon Treaty would mean that there was a more coherent European policy on international issues. The High Representative would be the face and the voice of the EU to the outside world, with 60,000 staff, and more missions in the world than of the individual Member States. The European Parliament had built up a gradual oversight role on defence issues, but it was certainly one area where the Parliament was weakest.

Mr Teasdale said that all the EU institutions had committees of some kind. In the Council of Ministers these were known as working groups. Legislation often went through several committees in the European Parliament before a vote was held in the plenary.

Mr Teasdale said that every Member State possessed one vote in the Council of Ministers. Sometimes, however, the qualified majority voting system was used, when there was weighted voting. The Lisbon Treaty introduced a “double-majority” voting system where about 65% of the vote was requried. However, even under this system, only one person could vote on behalf of each Member State.

125

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) referred to the global financial crisis and the collapse of several banks. He asked what issues the EU was taking to the G20 to ensure there was a better balance between finance and society.

Hon. Paul Tse Wai-chun MP (Hong Kong) asked how the European Parliament and the Commission resolved deadlocks.

Mr Teasdale said that the European Parliament had acquired a right of veto through the Lisbon Treaty but it needed to think hard about how it could use that power. When developing a proposal, the Commission would already be considering what might pass or not pass through the European Parliament, and the proposal reflected this. If there was a disagreement, behind-the-scenes negotiations took place. A first reading was held and, if the proposal was rejected, a second reading. Then, if agreement could still not found, conciliation meetings were held. These meetings used to happen quite frequently eight to nine years ago but less so now. The Council was much less hard- line now because it was better at the negotiating process and because more qualified majority voting was in use. Normally agreement was achieved at the very last minute; negotiations could sometimes continue into the early hours of the morning. The amount of proposals that the Parliament rejected was quite limited: perhaps two to three in a whole parliament. This showed that the system broadly worked. The main problem concerned accountability because much of the negotiations happened behind closed doors.

Mr Teasdale said that the EU had been doing quite a lot in response to the financial crisis. First, the European Central Bank (ECB) had pumped lots into the system to help financial flows. Second, the European Investment Bank and the Commission were working with the IMF to bail out certain countries, such as Hungary and Latvia. It was often small open economies with big financial services sectors that had been hit the hardest by the financial crisis. Ireland was the best example, and the country would have been in deep trouble had it not been for ECB assistance. Iceland had also been badly affected and it now wanted to join the EU. Much legislation on these issues would be coming forward in the European Parliament, to examine whether greater regulation of financial services at the European level was necessary. A strengthening of the EU-level regulatory framework would happen, with regulatory power shifting much more to the EU level. The EU’s response to the financial crisis seems to have worked because a total meltdown had been avoided.

126

Session 6 - BRIEFING ON THE PRESIDENCY FROM THE SWEDISH PERMANENT REPRESENTATION TO THE EU

Speakers: Mrs Zofia Tuckinska, Environment Counsellor, Environment Department, Sweden’s Permanent Representation to the EU

Mrs Zofia Tuckinska said that it was an honour to meet such a large and impressive delegation. Delegates’ programme looked very impressive, with little downtime. She explained that she was a Counsellor at the Swedish Permanent Representation to the EU. This was a mini-governmental office where Swedish ministries were represented. Counsellors tended to stay in post between three and five years.

Sweden’s main objective for a permanent representation was to be part of EU decision making on policy, but especially on legislation. Mrs Tuckinska’s area of expertise was the environment.

Like the other 26 Member States of the EU, Sweden did most of its national legislation in Brussels. 75% of its environmental legislation, for example, had been developed and agreed within the EU in a negotiation process known as co-decision.

Sweden was holding the Presidency for six months from 1 July. This meant that it was in charge or in the lead during this period both in Brussels but also in global meetings, for example climate change negotiations. It represented 500 million people in 27 countries, making it a very interesting but very intense task. As a Presidency country it had to prepare documents and papers. The next Presidency country would be Spain, then Belgium and the Presidency would then rotate around all the other countries. The next time Sweden would hold it would be 2020, so being the Presidency country did not come around that often for a Member State. One might think that as Presidency country one had every opportunity to make initiatives, but in reality Presidency countries inherited a lot from the previous Presidency.

There were a few points that made Sweden’s Presidency a little different to one in the middle of the five years that made up a European Parliament. The first was the fact that a new Parliament had been elected in autumn. With every new Parliament there was a lot of in-house work, for example electing members of committees, which meant it took time to get started. Other institutions had to wait during this period. The second difference was that a new Commission was about to be chosen. This was important because an outgoing Commission always made less proposals, instead preferring to tidy up existing measures. The final difference was the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty which meant that the basic framework for the EU would change on 1 December.

The Swedish Presidency had five main priorities. The first was jobs, growth and competitiveness, which was very important given the current economic situation. This priority was a reworking of a longstanding strategy. The second priority was climate, energy and the environment. As leader of the Presidency country, Sweden’s Prime Minister would take the lead on EU negotiations in Copenhagen. The third priority was a safer and more open Europe (the Stockholm Programme) which related to how the EU assisted people wanting to come and work or stay in Europe. The fourth priority was the Baltic Sea Strategy. This was a regional priority which focused on the

127 environment, integration and competitiveness. The final priority was the EU as a global actor and continued enlargement.

Two thirds through its Presidency, Sweden had already ticked several of these areas but others had worked less well. Since the environment was Mrs Tuckinska's area of expertise, she would focus on it as an example. On the environment, Sweden had four priorities: climate change (on which the Swedish Presidency was doing all it could to get a successful outcome in Copenhagen, although it was of course in Member States’ hands on achieving a common position); an eco-efficient economy; biodiversity; and marine environment: regional perspectives.

The Presidency’s work on the environment included negotiating on new Community policy and legislation such as on the conclusion of ships dismantling, on carbon dioxide emissions from vans and minibuses, on waste, on packaging and so on. It also spoke on behalf of the EU and prepared EU positions for global meetings such as Copenhagen. For these purposes there was a working party which met two to three times a week. There would usually be two meetings on the environment as well as two meetings of Heads of State a year. This year there had been an additional meeting on the environment because of Copenhagen and heads of ministers had met four times. Sweden also hosted a large number of key meetings, such as the Intermediate Climate Policies workshop. The advantage of this for Sweden was that it made the EU more visible to its citizens who sometimes felt quite far away from Europe. This in fact was the advantage to the whole Presidency process – media interest would increase when your country Prime Minister chaired a meeting for example.

Andrew Tuggy DL, Secretary, CPA UK branch, added that holding the Presidency could be a huge burden on a Member State, particular smaller countries who often required assistance.

Hon. Paul Wai-chun Tse MP (Hong Kong) said that it was clear that the Presidency country was more than just a convener of meetings – for example it had priorities. However, the priorities Mrs Tuckinska had listed would surely take more than six months to achieve. He asked whether the EU was trying too hard to be fair to all its Member States at the expense of leadership.

Hon. Abdul Halim Hussain MP (Malaysia – Penang) also commented that six months seemed too short for a Presidency and asked whether it would ever be reviewed.

Rt Hon. Rebecca Kadaga MP (Uganda) asked how Sweden’s priorities compared to those of the next Presidency country’s priorities and whether Sweden would ensure Spain continued the focus on these areas.

Hon. Haji Idris Haji Abas MLC (Brunei) asked if there were any processes of adaptation, given that such a significant level of national legislation was derived from the EU.

Mr Nawab Abdul Ghani Talpur MNA (Pakistan) asked how legislation was agreed.

128

Hon. Trusty Gina MP (Swaziland) asked whether visa issues were within Mrs Tucinska’s jurisdiction and explained that some delegates had been unable to get visas into Europe.

Mrs Zofia Tuckinska said that it was not possible to ensure a Presidency country continued the priorities of its predecessor. However, Presidencies carried on where previous Presidencies had left off on legislation – for example Sweden would not be able to complete its work on waste from electrical products by December but would hand this over to Spain. This was the reason she had said that a Presidency country inherited 75 – 85% of its agenda from its predecessor. Yet there was still room for initiative, and this is what made a Presidency interesting – seeing what footprint a Member State would make. Sweden, for example, had introduced the Baltic Sea Process. Decisions on this would be made in two and four years time, long after Sweden’s Presidency.

The EU did have concerns about the efficiency of a rolling Presidency. Three years ago it had therefore decided to initiate a system of linking three Presidencies together. Sweden had been linked with the two preceding Presidencies – the Czech Republic and France - and the three Member States had agreed a joint programme before they began their Presidencies. This was one improvement. An incoming Presidency was also very close to the current Presidency during the latter’s second half in charge. This was to ensure things were just not left aside when the new Presidency began.

The Lisbon Treaty had not changed the rotating system, but it did create a role of President to chair heads of meetings for the next five years, and also strengthened the EU’s external relations in the role of an individual who would hold office for six months. These were improvements.

Member States had transferred powers to initiate legislation to the EU in certain competences, for example rules on air quality were discussed with Member States then agreed by the European Parliament. Each Member State then had to introduce this legislation at a national level. The Commission’s task was to check that the legislation was implemented. In the worst case, Member States could be brought to the Court of Justice and sanctioned.

Visas were a tricky issue. Mrs Tucinska was not familiar with the issue except to say that in the EU the majority of Member States formed part of the Schengen area which permitted free travel between States. Unfortunately she did not know the rules for third countries.

Andrew Tuggy DL suggested this was a question delegates could put to MEPs on the External Relations Committee. He thanked Mrs Tucinska for her time.

129

Session 7 - BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION WITH MEMBERS OF THE ACP- EU JOINT PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

Speakers: Martin Callanan MEP (UK) Frank Engel MEP (Luxembourg)

Martin Callanan MEP said he had been an MEP in the European Parliament for ten years, and was starting his third term. He was the environment spokesman for the British Conservatives and a member of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. He was also a Chief Whip. The Conservatives had recently left the EPP in the European Parliament because of constitutional differences; the Conservatives were now in the European Reformists. He was also a member of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly. He was happy to answer questions from the delegates.

Frank Engel MEP said he was still within the EPP. In fact, his Christian Democrats party had been the founding members of the EPP and historically had opposed the expansion of the EPP. Despite the British Conservatives leaving the party, the EPP was still by far the largest political group in the European Parliament, with 265 MEPs. He was a freshly elected Member of the House. The Luxembourg Parliament had 60 Members, and 20 of these were MEPs too. He was a member of the Employment and Social Affairs Committee, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee and the Special Committee on the Financial, Economic and Social Crisis (a temporary committee created to establish the effects of the financial crisis on the EU). He too was a member of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, who had reported on the impact of climate change on developing countries and their public finances. Mr Engel invited questions from the delegates.

Mr Teburoro Tito MP (Kiribati) noted that the party groupings in the European Parliament did not appear to be struggling for power. He asked what was the aim of MEPs if they were not to form a government of any kind.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) asked Mr Callanan what proportion of British Conservatives thought the Lisbon Treaty was undemocratic, and whether he believed he was now in an undemocratic parliament.

Hon. Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed MP (Malaysia) asked about the EU banning seafood from Malaysia. He asked about the rationale for the ban and for the Environment Committee’s view on this.

Mrs Kate Kamba MP (East African Legislative Assembly) said that the ACP-EU relationship had been established for some time but had still failed to grapple with poverty in Africa. The financial crisis and climate change were impacting on poverty in the developing world. She asked how the MEPs were addressing these issues and, if Europe was genuine and ready to help, whether the EU would establish better terms of trade. She also asked how long the current ACP-EU relationship would continue in its current form.

Hon. Pehin Goh King Chin MLC (Brunei Darussalem) asked about the relationship between climate change and development.

130

Miss Penny Low MP (Singapore) said there were some similarities between the EU and ASEAN, which both had populations of around 500 million. She asked whether the speakers believed the EU model was something that ASEAN could learn something from. She also asked what the speakers’ views were of ASEAN and Singapore.

Mr Md. Monwar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) asked Mr Callanan how the different UK parties voted in the EU—were they together or divided.

Mr Callanan explained that the difference between the European Parliament and several national parliaments was that MEPs did not form the government. It was essentially a co-legislative chamber with the Council of Ministers. A big grouping in the European Parliament actually had a pretty limited advantage, when compared to national parliaments.

Mr Engel said that, unfortunately, the European Parliament was a parliament without government. The European Commission was the European government but it could not be named so because some Member States would not approve.

Mr Callanan believed that the Lisbon Treaty lacked any democratic legitimacy and that the whole process had been a fiddle. The EU constitution had been put to a referendum and two Member States voted against it. The constitution was then revised to produce the Lisbon Treaty which was, in essence, exactly the same as the constitution. Secret agreements had been made that no more referenda should be held unless Member States were constitutionally obliged to do so. All the main UK parties had promised a referendum on the constitution, and Labour had reneged on this promise. Now it was difficult to hold a referendum because the treaty had been adopted and had become law. The Conservative Party faced a difficult decision if it won the next general election. David Cameron had announced that there was no point in having a post-ratification referendum. Many still felt aggrieved about it.

Mr Engel did not believe the Lisbon Treaty was undemocratic. The French had voted “no” to the constitution because they believed it promoted a free market economy. The Dutch voted “no” partly because of the French vote and also because the debate in the Netherlands was poisoned by xenophobic racist elements. The Lisbon Treaty was the first treaty that allowed Member States to leave the EU: if the Conservatives disapproved so strongly, this was a good option for David Cameron to take if he wanted to.

Mr Callanan did not know the details of banning seafood from Malaysia. He assumed it would be related to health concerns. However, this should never be an excuse for protectionist instincts, for example protecting European fishermen.

Mr Callanan said that the EU-ACP relationship was primarily about aid. However, Africa could not continue to rely heavily on large quantities of aid from the developed world. Many parts of Africa were becoming aid-dependent. Despite huge transfers of money many parts of Africa were poorer than before. Better governance and transparency were required. Free trade had to be solution to Africa’s problems.

131

Mr Engel largely agreed with Mr Callanan about African development. Although there had been encouraging examples of aid, there was many places where this had not happened.

Mr Callanan said he had visited Singapore and Borneo last year. He had been hugely impressed by Singapore, although he held some concerns about human rights. He was not in a position to comment on ASEAN because he had only recently joined the EU delegation for relations with the ASEAN countries. He did not believe that ASEAN should follow the EU model because it was a very dangerous model, but ultimately it was a decision for their own democracies. ASEAN countries should adopt the only good thing about the EU, which was free trade between Member States.

Mr Callanan said that the UK Conservatives were the largest group from the UK in the EP. Sometimes the politicians from UK parties in the European Parliament agreed on issues, sometimes they badly disagreed. However, national interests were always important within the European Parliament.

Hon. Emmanuel Munaile MP (Zambia) asked the speakers whether they believed the EU had done enough to help African countries to encourage investors. Investors often went to African counties to avoid tax but they banked the proceeds in their own countries. With this occurring, he asked how African countries could be expected to raise enough revenue for themselves and to reduce dependence on aid.

Mr Cedrick Thomas Frolick MP (South Africa) commented that aid was often used for other purposes, such as to prop up illegitimate regimes. The African Union was attempting to address these types of shortcomings but, given the long colonial history of Africa, Europe had a role to play in terms of development and aid. Aid needed to be very targeted and specific in order to strengthen both the regional and continental economies, and it could be used as a carrot.

Mr Callanan said that foreign investors in Africa were simply playing by the rules. As sovereign countries, it was the African countries themselves who should set the rules. It was not possible have it both ways: African countries had to establish laws and proper rules if they wanted more investment.

Mr Callanan agreed that aid had been used in the past to prop up illegitimate regimes and it still often occurred today. However, African countries themselves were not doing enough against regimes such as that in Zimbabwe. African countries needed to overcome the hang-ups of the past. It was frustrating when large amounts of aid payments were given to regimes such as Zimbabwe; taxpayers did not like it either. Even getting African countries to pass a resolution on Zimbabwe was very difficult.

Mr Engel said that Luxembourg did not have the resources to prop up any country in the world. The Belgian Congo had become independent so hurriedly that in two years there was very little administrative structure. The events that happened later in Congo were therefore not entirely unexpected. African history was sad, and it could be sad again when the current exploitation by larger nations to the east took hold.

Rt Hon. Beatrice Rwakimari MP (Uganda) said that there was a need for more trade, not aid. The focus of the EU, African Union and ACP countries should be to

132 encourage developing countries to make their own agricultural products and to help them increase their trade.

Mr Engel agreed that African countries requried more trade. However, it could be very difficult to persuade EU farmers of this.

133

Session 8 - BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION WITH MEMBERS OF THE TRADE COMMITTEE AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND EXTERNAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE (combined)

Speakers: Robert Sturdy, MEP – UK Eastern Region (European Conservatives and Reformists), Giles Chichester, MEP – South West England and Gibraltar (European Conservatives and Reformists), Syed Kamall, MEP - London (European Conservatives and Reformists), and Frank Engel, MEP - Luxembourg (European People’s Party (Christian Democrats))

Robert Sturdy MEP welcomed delegates. The European Parliament now had considerably more powers thanks to Lisbon, and this was something that would affect delegates. He was vice chair of the International Trade Committee. Before the Conservative party moved out of the European People’s Party (EPP) group, he had been co-ordinator for the group on the Committee and was now the co-ordinator for the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group. He had a strong interest in Doha. He had been a member of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly Delegation. He had a background in agriculture. Before becoming an MEP he had worked on the Uruguay Round. He believed in free trade. He was concerned about anti-dumping measures and trade defence instruments. He was a rapporteur on Economic Partnership Agreements.

Giles Chichester MEP explained that he represented the South West of England and Gibraltar. He was a member of the South Africa Delegation, Vice-chair of the Pan- African Parliament Delegation and a member of the Australia and New Zealand Delegation. He served on the Industry, Research and Energy Committee and his particular area of expertise was energy. He was the President of the European Energy Forum, a body to bring parliamentarians, industry and the Commission together to discuss energy issues. He had been told that the seminar would be on foreign affairs but he welcomed the opportunity to comment on trade.

Rt Hon Rebecca Kadaga MP (Uganda) said that delegates had been hearing a lot about the Conservative party’s shift from the EPP to another group. She wanted to know why the move had taken place and what effect it would have on delegates’ countries.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) told the speakers that in the previous session Martin Callanan MEP had described the Lisbon Treaty as an undemocratic fiddle. He asked if this was the case why the Conservative party continued to participate in the EU at all.

Hon. Trusty Gina MP (Swaziland) asked whether the speakers might be able to help those Commonwealth delegates who had been unable to get visas for the Brussels leg of the seminar.

Giles Chichester MEP said that the EPP was the main centre right grouping in the European Parliament. The Conservative party had been members of this grouping since 1992, as it had been perceived to be their logical place. During his leadership contest David Cameron had made a pledge that the Conservative party would leave

134

the EPP the morning after being elected. Like many pledges made during election campaigns he had found this difficult to do, so in the last European elections the Conservative party had stood on a platform of leaving the EPP and after the elections had finally set up a new group.

The rationale for the move was a view that the EPP was federalist and too integrationist. There was a desire to create a non-federalist centre right group. This had been done with a number of partners and Conservative MEPs were still getting used to the grouping. Martin Callanan was known for his diplomatic language.

Robert Sturdy MEP said that his view of the grouping was very similar to that of Mr Chichester’s. Politics was always about power and the EPP had been a very powerful group.

Regarding the Lisbon Treaty, David Cameron had made it very clear that the Conservative party believed in staying in the EU. The Treaty would have a big impact on delegates. The Common Agricultural Policy which cost billions of Euros had been very protective. Under the new Treaty there would be co-decision with a committee on agriculture having a say in how this budget would be spent. People would be making great efforts to try to get on this committee, which would not just represent farmers’ interests, but also take into account the views of budget specialists. It meant that elected members would have a greater say, making things much better for issues that affected Australia and many other countries represented at the seminar. It was very easy to criticise, but constructive criticism was more difficult.

Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty had to be accepted. He would have preferred a referendum but now that the treaty had been ratified it was unlikely to be changed. This would require unanimity and the EU could not even get agreement on a move away from Strasbourg.

Visas were a more difficult issue. They were down to national parliaments rather than the EU so it would not be right for him to interfere as an MEP.

Andrew Tuggey DL, Secretary, CPA UK branch, introduced Syed Kamall MEP who had just entered the room. Mr Kamall had generously spoken at every previous visit of delegates to Brussels. He asked the speakers if they could explain to delegates who the other members of their new group were.

Rt Hon. Rebecca Kadaga MP (Uganda) reiterated her desire to know what the move meant for delegates.

Giles Chichester MEP thanked her for her question, joking that in fact he was not at all grateful to be asked. The Conservative party was still working out what difference the move made to them.

The new group was called the European Conservatives and Reformists group. One might think that there was a tension between Conservatives and reform, but Conservatives carried out reforms better than any other political party, once they were convinced that these reforms were needed. Conservative MEPs made up the largest part of the grouping. There were 25 of them, plus one Ulster Unionist. The grouping

135

also included 15 MEPs of the Polish Law and Justice party, 9 from the Czech Civic Democratic party and five other MEPs from five different countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands, Latvia and Hungary.

The move did not make much difference to delegates. The fact that only Conservative MEPs had come to talk to delegates was a sign that their party placed great weight on relations with the Commonwealth. Some of his colleagues who were against the EU might even want to strengthen links with the Commonwealth, although they were possibly of a generation who would like to return to times that no one in the room wanted to return to.

Syed Kamall MEP said that one of the reasons the Conservative party had left the EPP grouping was a disagreement over how the EU should develop. Some members in the grouping favoured the United States model for Europe. Eurosceptics in the UK were often accused of being little Englanders. He often had to remind colleagues on the Trade Committee that there was a world beyond the European Union. Politicians behaving like little Europeans were putting Europe at a disadvantage, reducing opportunities for European entrepreneurs. European legislation often had negative consequences for European citizens and right across the world. It was true that the UK had had an uneven relationship with the Commonwealth in the past. He was a product of that.

Mr Kelvin Davis MP (New Zealand) asked Robert Sturdy to expand his comments on anti-dumping.

Mr Md. Monowar Hossain Chowdhury MP (Bangladesh) asked whether MEPs each had their own constituency and if they did not, whether this meant they were less accountable to their electorate.

Andrew Tuggey DL introduced Frank Engel, an MEP for Luxembourg and member of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).

Mr Stuart Farrow MP (South Africa) argued that African countries, for which agriculture was a key industry, were competing in a subsidised environment. He asked what initiatives the EU had taken on aid.

Robert Sturdy MEP said that it was very easy to hide behind anti-dumping legislation as a means of protecting yourself. The EU had introduced anti-dumping measures on shoes with China and Vietnam. These measures were supposed to ensure any shoes traded with the EU were produced in the country at a certain cost. This was totally unfair. As a free trader, he was against anti-dumping measures in any circumstance in which they were used as protection.

Subsidies were completely unfair and unnecessary. Soon food security would be the issue. If subsidies were in place and they affected the market in a country and production of food ceased, they would be defeating what they set out to do. He had made his money in free market products. The problem with food was that it was always political.

136

Giles Chichester MEP said that he and Mr Study had served as MEPs before and after the closed list election system. It was true that it was important to have the support of your constituents, but he had stood as a Conservative and the electorate had given its support to his party. He had been selected by the party. He did however regret the change, as MEPs were now distanced from their electorate and vice versa. He was now an MEP for a region with six other MEPs. However, he did have recognition in the region.

Andrew Tuggey DL said that Frank Engel was an MEP from a small legislature in Luxembourg and might therefore take a different view.

Frank Engel MEP said that countries’ voting systems were always very entrenched. In Luxembourg voters had six votes and could do exactly as they pleased with these votes. They could give one or two votes to any candidates. It was quite common for people to spread their votes among two or more parties. Luxembourg had had universal suffrage for men and women since 1919 so the system was very entrenched.

Syed Kamall MEP said that he had lost six elections in the past (five local and national elections and one European election). However, in 2005 he moved up the Conservative party list and became an MEP without being elected. The last European elections were therefore the first he had ever won. The party list system had obviously been wonderful for him but he was not so sure that it was democratic. MEPs tried to keep their parties happy, hoping to be placed high on the list. Before the last elections Daniel Hannan had written a newspaper article saying that since he knew he was number one on the list, he could theoretically disappear for three weeks and still be elected.

There was a lack of joined-up thinking on aid and subsidies. On the one hand the EU was proud of having such a large aid budget and believed it was helping to take the poor out of poverty. Yet on the other hand it had subsidies and trade barriers that did a lot of damage. Whenever he spoke to entrepreneurs in developing countries they always told him that what they wanted most of all was the chance to trade with the EU.

A huge number of the EU’s policies were anti-development. For example, the EU was currently considering a directive on alternative investment fund managers. The Commission’s first draft stated that all funds had to be based inside the EU. Yet a lot of funds were based outside, for example in the Cayman Islands. He had a friend who ran a fund, not based in the EU, which built schools in poorer areas. Under the directive, as currently drafted, his friend would not be allowed to invest in this fund. Such anti-development policies were being appeased by a large aid budget. Delegates should highlight the fact that the EU was being hypocritical.

Mr Adam Giles MLA (Australia – Northern Territory) joked that there was a saying that losing made you a better winner. He had heard Mr Chichester make comments before about the future of nuclear energy in Australia. He asked about the future of Australia’s relations with the United States, the EU and China, and Africa. South East Asia often felt a bit left out of this.

137

Hon. Ahmed Ibrahim MP (Ghana) commented that the speakers had criticised the EU, but they themselves had voted for subsidies and trade barriers.

Rt Hon. Rebecca Kadaga MP (Uganda) said that Uganda had been trying to export fresh pineapples to the EU, but had been told that they had to be half the size. Farmers could not reduce the size of their pineapples. This issue had been going on for a long time.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) asked where venture capital would come from now that there was a financial crisis.

Syed Kamall MP said it was not for him to comment on the role of Australia in the world. Historically there had been very good connections between Australia and the UK. Australia was now going through a transition, but it did not have to choose. This was the same argument used by the Conservatives in Europe: EU Member States could look towards Europe and the rest of the world at the same time.

He had always been in favour of free trade (It was not countries that did trade, but people and businesses). He had made lots of speeches criticising EU protectionism and would be happy to forward these speeches to Hon Ibrahim. He was not scared of criticising countries either when he believed they were making mistakes. He was from Guyana, his ancestors were from India and Pakistan and his wife was half Indian, half Mauritian. His parents had lived in the United States. He was happy to speak out about all these countries if they displayed structural inefficiencies. For example, he often criticised Guyana, the only English speaking country in South America, for still being dependent on bananas and sugar. He had told Guyanese politicians face to face that this was out of touch with reality. He was equally happy to pay compliments when he thought a policy was right. When he visited Africa or the Caribbean he saw lots of short term wealth creation, for example bustling markets, but no real sign of long term investment. This was because a lack of confidence in rule of law or the banking system.

Senator Douglas Cameron (Australia) said that he agreed with the point made on rule of law, but even countries where this was not a problem were facing difficulties with venture capital.

Frank Engel MEP said that before the economic crisis much of the money in circulation was attached to investment vehicles no one understood. Bankers who came into the economic crisis committee said that frequently they had no longer known what they were actually selling people, but people had wanted and bought into these vehicles. If the EU was serious about re-regulating the markets, it should prohibit a certain kind of vehicle. The money that used to be invested in such vehicles would still exist and it would then be possible to channel it into real alternatives. These might not promise a 20% return in a year, but maybe 7% over a longer period. The coming time might even be better since venture capital would no longer be blocked in such vehicles.

Giles Chichester MEP congratulated Douglas Cameron on his Australian accent.

138

It was certainly nonsensical to insist on pineapples being smaller than they were. In the UK there had been similar stories about straight cucumbers. His favourite story was about strawberries condemned by the EU for being too square. In fact the boxes had been crushed in transit and the strawberries had rotted, but the EU had been blamed. Some of the stories about the EU might be unfair but on the whole he could not agree more.

Australia was very lucky in its location, resources and people. It was, in many respects, unique. He had recently had discussions with academics in western Australia about whether Australia was an Asian country or not. Australia was a separate continent, but it was also culturally and economically separate.

Australia did lack nuclear power. However, it was rich in uranium on which Europe’s nuclear renaissance would depend. Nuclear was recognised as ultra low carbon, reliable, and relatively low cost, and it would end concerns about security of supply. Nuclear power also gave off a lot of spare heat which could be used to solve one of Australia’s other problems, water shortage, through desalination. Nuclear power was controversial in the European Parliament, for a variety of reasons, including environmental. The issue was mainly around waste, which lasted for a long time. In its purest form it was pretty toxic and needed careful handling. The market for uranium would be pretty good. Alexander Downer, former Australian Foreign Minister, had suggested that Australia could become the Saudi Arabia of uranium.

Hon. Alfreda Mwamba MP (Zambia) said that Zambia had abandoned its natural resources. There were now greenhouses growing vegetables and flowers for export, but most were owned by foreigners. She asked how the rule of law and intellectual property rights related to fruit and vegetables. She wanted to know how open the EU was with regard to intellectual property.

Mr Teburoro Tito MP (Kiribati) said that over the last twenty years Pacific states had come to the conclusion that development aid was engineered and driven by experts to create global programmes for the poor. Over time it had become about the self-enrichment of those involved. Money did not go to the people – it all stayed in the clouds. Meanwhile global resources were raped. £4million had been allocated to fight the effects of global warming in Kiribati over the last five years but £3.5 million of this had been spent on the consultants. It was Darwinian survival of the smartest.

Frank Engel MEP said Mr Tito’s speech had been quite a performance. It was obscene how the aid industry had developed. It was only logical that too much money was going to consultants, to consultants’ consultants, to the manufacturers of their jeeps, on their flights and so on. Aid had become an industry, in which there was a lot of waste. The carbon footprint of the development industry was also huge (even though he did not really believe in climate change). One example was the phosphate rock island of Nauru in the Pacific. During the time of the phosphate industry, before its phosphorous reserves were exhausted, the island had grown from 1500 to 10,000 inhabitants. These numbers were unsustainable and had contributed further to environmental damage. Nauru was now an international finance centre, but it mostly employed non-Naurans, those who had exploited the island in the first place.

139

The rule of law was the most important concern for development and investment. Investors wanted to know that the state would be predictable, in other words that their investments were safe. If a state was stable he could live with it skipping elections now and then if they were too hard to set up and organise. There had been African success sorties without elections.

Giles Chichester MEP said that he had been taught at school that Zambia had a lot of mineral resources. He hoped this was still the case. He understood delegates’ frustrations about development projects. The answer was to change economic conditions. This could be very painful – there were no easy answers. He sympathised with the comments made by the Kiribati delegate. When Chris Patten had been EU Commissioner for External Relations he had criticised the EU for voting in more and more expenditure on aid without knowing how to handle or deliver it effectively. Without effective management and delivery, you ended up with the situation described by Mr Tito, which was frustrating for donors and recipients. He hoped the gloomy predictions about sea levels rises did not prove true – he wanted to sail in Mr Tito’s part of the world after retirement.

Syed Kamall MEP said that the rule of law was most important. Whenever he talked to investors they told him they would not go into certain countries because they wanted a 30 year guarantee, a guarantee that after 30 years they would still be able to get their money out of a country. Sellers wanted the same certainty. He had been to Uganda with Rebecca Kadaga and had talked to entrepreneurs who had actually begged the west not to send more aid as it brought people in from the aid industry into their country who thought they knew more than the locals. In one village there were more NGOS than villagers. Although well-intentioned, these people stayed in nice hotels, had good cars, ate good food and so on. The biggest criticism of NGOs was that they found the poorest children to put on their leaflets to raise money for their organisations. Anyone could find people like this in most countries – even in London. What was important was whether NGOs actually wanted to abolish poverty.

Intellectual property worked both ways. If there was a patent it had to be guaranteed worldwide so it could not be hijacked by someone else elsewhere. When he had asked local people about how best aid should be spent improving capacity for recognition of intellectual property was in the top eight things mentioned.

Andrew Tuggey DL, Secretary, CPA UK branch, said that one issue raised throughout the conference was building parliaments' capacity to scrutinise the executive’s use of aid. It was important for MEPs to visit these parliaments. He thanked the speakers and closed the conference.

140

141