Unrevised transcript of evidence taken before The Select Committee on the European Union Inquiry on THE ROLE OF NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION Evidence Session No. 11 Heard in Public Questions 142 - 146 THURSDAY 9 JANUARY 2014 10 am Witnesses: Simon Sutour, André Gattolin, Richard Yung, Éric Bocquet, Catherine Tasca, Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam and Collette Mélot USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT 1. This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and webcast on www.parliamentlive.tv. 2. Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither Members nor witnesses have had the opportunity to correct the record. If in doubt as to the propriety of using the transcript, please contact the Clerk of the Committee. 3. Members and witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Clerk of the Committee within 7 days of receipt. 1 Members present Lord Boswell of Aynho (Chairman) Lord Bowness Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Lord Harrison Lord Maclennan of Rogart Lord Wilson of Tillyorn ________________ Examination of Witnesses Simon Sutour, President of the European Affairs Committee, André Gattolin, Richard Yung, Éric Bocquet, Catherine Tasca, Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam and Collette Mélot, Members of the European Affairs Committee, French Senate Q142 The Chairman: Monsieur le Président et Sénateurs, je tiens compte toujours des mots de Churchill: “Prenez garde, je vais parler français”. If I am allowed, I would prefer to speak in English, but it is to express our great thanks to you for the honour of this reception and for the opportunity of discussing these matters, which are, I think, of common interest. Perhaps I may make two points before I introduce my team. First, we are already very grateful for the engagement of the Senate. You have already sent us a very helpful written note with your comments, which I have read again this morning. It is an extremely useful piece of work. It is not even, dare I say, too long; it is something that I can work with. My other comment relates to activity taking place in this building as we speak. You are debating the possibility of a transatlantic free trade area, which is very interesting. One of the Sub- Committees of my Committee is carrying out an inquiry into that subject, but this is the first time that the two planets of interest in this have come into conjunction. We ought to do more of this, I think. If we do not understand the positions and the problems, it is more difficult to get our national Governments into the right frameworks to make their representations to the Commission and others and to get the outcome that we want. 2 I shall say a brief word about our inquiry. We established it last summer. We have been taking evidence from experts, political practitioners and others both in Britain and in other countries of the European Union. We saw the European Parliament yesterday. We will shortly begin to prepare our report and will produce that before the European Parliament elections later this spring, in March or April. We have no prescription and we shall offer no precise prescription. We want to offer some analysis and some menu of possibilities for future co-operation, both at the formal level—in the question of yellow cards and the question of the work of COSAC—and in the possibilities for better informal exchanges in developing thinking together, particularly at an early stage in the development of European policy. If I may, I will present the members of our group and we will ask you a few questions that might help to influence our thinking for the inquiry. I begin—and there is no particular political configuration here—with, on my far right, Lord Bowness, who is a Conservative. Next is Lord Wilson, who is a former very distinguished diplomatic official. Then we have Lord Maclennan, who is a Liberal Democrat. Like Lord Wilson, I do not have a political affiliation now. Lord Bowness and Lord Maclennan are from the governing coalition and Lord Foulkes and Lord Harrison are from the socialist party. Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: The next Government. The Chairman: All I would say, not least as a former Member of the lower House, is that we have a different perspective—I think that you also have this in your Senate—because there is no guaranteed majority on any one issue. The Government lost yesterday by— Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: 137. The Chairman: It was a complete defeat on a particular issue in the upper House. It was something to do with anti-social behaviour, was it not? But I think that the spirit of co- operation and accommodation that influences the House of Lords influences our report. It 3 also influences our attitudes towards the European Union. I think that I can say that my colleagues may have packed their suitcases to return to London tonight, but they have not packed their suitcases to leave the European Union. Perhaps we may then, Mr President, ask some questions. It is your answers that are really of interest. I will ask the first. It has been said that there is a democratic deficit and a lack of democratic legitimacy in Europe. You would not have to be a specialist to know that there is a degree of distress among our peoples and our citizens about current events. This has been a very tough time for all our countries. We are interested in your view as to whether an increasing role for national parliaments within the European Union would assist the operation of the Union. As you consider that, may I put the dilemma? Some people might say that if we were to have a bigger role, that would further delay the process of making necessary decisions. On the other hand, if we could get—to use an American phrase—buy- in, where there was the involvement of the national parliaments, would the business of making difficult decisions be more legitimate and perhaps easier? That is the dilemma. Simon Sutour: (Interpretation) Thank you for that first question. We have been joined by our colleague Mme Joëlle Garriaud-Maylam. She is a Senator representing French people living abroad and is a member of the UMP group. She has quite a lot of dealings in London this group. Who would like to speak on the role of national Parliaments? Catherine Tasca: (Interpretation) I would like to answer that. There is obvious distress and concern among citizens of all European countries, but there is also a lack of confidence in the European Union, especially in the way in which representatives are elected. These concerns of the citizens are part of kind of anti-parliamentary movement that exists in Europe. This has a big impact on institutions. There is a big difference between the European opinions and those at national level. We have to try to address the situation, I feel. There are two possible perspectives. I would say that the second one that you presented— 4 increasing and strengthening the role of national parliaments—would be the best one to choose. Interparliamentary co-operation would also be a good idea. It would help us to improve the legislative process. This needs to be done, since the differences between national opinions and the decisions taken at the European level are widening. Simon Sutour: (Interpretation) My colleague will add to that. Richard Yung: (Interpretation) It is clear that as we move towards more and more integration, more and more important decisions will be taken at European level. We have a problem co-ordinating the legitimacy of the European Parliament and the national parliament—there is a wide gap between the two. I have two examples. The first is the budget process, relating to the stability pact and so on, in which the UK participates. It is clear that the European Commission and European Council will have more and more clout in the future in terms of decisions that are made concerning national budgets. In this kind of system, the Commission can easily reject the proposals and send them back to the specific country, saying that they do not agree with them and that they has to be revised. The main legitimate role of a parliament is to vote for the budget; that is the very role of parliament. So we have a situation where the national parliaments will be in a very ambiguous situation. We are trying to develop a conference concerning Article 13. This should provide certain mechanisms. The European Parliament is saying that it has a legitimate role on the European questions and that national parliaments have less of a role to play there. There are particular problems concerning the budget, and not just for the UK. There will also be many problems concerning banking union. The measures on banking union will be extremely important and we need to find a solution involving the role of national parliaments. The Chairman: Thank you. I think we understand the dilemma more clearly now. Richard Yung: (Interpretation) I feel that national parliaments need to work with the national parliamentary committees on European affairs and finance, in particular. We need to work 5 more on the exchange of information with the Commission before any budgetary decisions are made. There needs to be a greater flow of information between national parliaments and the Commission and more exchanges between parliaments, as this is currently lacking. Today’s meeting is a good example of this. Simon Sutour: (In English) I will give just one example. It has been very difficult for us here to have Mario Draghi, the President of the European Central Bank, come to speak to us.