---

Fundamental Rights Agency (EUC Report)

My Lords, I have a special interest in the subject matter of these two excellent reports: first, as a member of Sub-Committee E, admirably chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and, secondly, given my responsibility on these Benches for women’s rights, in succession to my noble friend Lady Thomas, who has made such a distinctive contribution in that area. I have learnt over the years that, as an advocate, one should never become too matey with judges and that one should not say nice things about them, because they always punish you in argument afterwards, bending over backwards in their desire to demonstrate their independence. However, I can in this debate say nice things about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. He has always been a wise judge and a committed supporter of the effective legal protection of human rights through law. It is a great pleasure to serve under him in Sub-Committee E. As he showed this evening by the way in which he presented his summary, my goodness, he is a diplomat. I would join counsel for the prosecution, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, in what he said, expect for in one thing. He displayed uncharacteristic narrow-mindedness about economic and social rights. I had thought that we had all reached the stage of understanding that economic and social rights are intertwined with civil and political rights. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has never drawn the kind of distinction that he sought to draw. Having said that, I join the prosecution bench in this debate with enthusiasm. To give a bit of context, there are some 80,000 cases pending in the Strasbourg court. By 2010 it is estimated that there will be 250,000. The process by which its 46 judges are put forward by their Governments and elected by the parliamentary assembly is not consistent, fair or free from political patronage and interference. The UK’s selection of the British judge is admirable, but among the member states that method is regrettably unique. There is a pressing need to reform the convention system. There is also a pressing need to bring together in a better way the two European systems and to reduce the grossly wasteful duplication in the legislation and judicial spheres with the European Parliament and its officials having to meet in three cities—Strasbourg, Luxembourg and Brussels—at huge inconvenience and waste of public money. It is in that context that we consider these proposals. As has been said, they are to create not one but two new institutions: the fundamental rights agency, which will have meagre resources and powers; and a separate institution for gender equality, which will also have meagre resources and powers. Instead of combining these institutions into a single body, as many have pointed out we British are doing in creating a single equality and human rights body, the EU Commission insists on there being two bodies based not in one city but in two cities: in Vienna and, I believe, in Brno or Warsaw. Instead of having a lean and efficient system of management in each of the bodies, every one of the 25 EU member states will nominate representatives on the top-heavy management board and, instead of there being a single management board, there will be two. It would have been sensible, before developing the proposals, to have considered ways of strengthening the existing human rights protection within the wider Council of Europe system, with which I began. For example, it would have been sensible to have given the European human rights commissioner the power to bring proceedings in his own right against defaulting states, or to intervene as a friend of the court in important pending cases. It would have been sensible to have put forward a treaty that would at last have enabled the European Union to accede to the European convention. It would have been sensible to have created some fact-finding mechanism to relieve the overburdened Strasbourg court. Instead, we are to have two top-heavy and weak EU human rights institutions side by side with the existing Council of Europe institutions, with concordats to reduce the risks of wasteful duplication and overlap. I am not the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. For 40 years I have been a committed supporter of the European protection of human rights and of European political integration. But I regard these proposals with dismay. The problems are analysed wisely and clearly in the two reports. The report on the gender equality institute asks the right questions: first, to be sure that any proposal to set up yet another European institute is soundly based; secondly, to know what in practical terms the proposed institute is supposed to do and whether it is necessary to set up a separate EU-funded institute to do it. The committee rightly concluded that a case for a separate institute for gender equality has not been demonstrated and recommended that further consideration be given to the alternative of incorporating the gender equality work envisaged for the institute into the activities of the proposed fundamental rights agency. It also strongly criticised the management structure proposed as ““potentially unwieldy and inefficient””. I respectfully agree. In the course of the inquiry, the Minister responsible gave evidence explaining that the institute was intended to carry out tasks not being done by existing institutions, such as,"““questions of co-ordination; centralisation and dissemination; the raising of gender visibility; and the provision of tools for gender mainstreaming””." The Minister, Meg Munn MP, told the committee that merging the activities of the institute with other bodies and agencies would, in the Government’s view, run the risk that general equality would be sidelined, but she was unable to explain how it made sense to create a single integrated equality body in this country while balkanising in the European Union. Also in the course of the inquiry, the noble Lord, Lord Moser, who knows more about the gathering of statistics than anyone in the country, pointed out to one witness that Eurostat is probably the best of the international statistical agencies, and that he did not understand why the potential institute might even think that it could get better statistics than Eurostat. He received no coherent answer from any witness. The committee gave the fundamental rights agency a very cautious welcome, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said. We addressed the vagueness and over-breadth of the remit of the agency; the absence of a strong investigative or legislative scrutiny role; the overlap with and possible undermining of the activities of the Council of Europe; and the agency’s lack of independence. Our report points out that the current proposal does not appear to envisage a legislative scrutiny role for the agency, which is a most remarkable omission. We recommended that, when the final role of the agency is clear, the Government should report to Parliament on the question of its legal base. We concluded, diplomatically, that the agency might potentially play a useful role in enhancing observance of fundamental rights in the EU, but we share our witnesses’ concern that failure to delineate the agency’s tasks risks leading to wasteful duplication of the work of other bodies in the field. We emphasise the importance of making sure that the agency is more than just a postbox for collecting and sorting data. We pointed out that the very limited general role envisaged does not add much, if any, value to the existing mechanisms but serves to reinforce the views of the critics, who argue against the proliferation of useless agencies in the EU. The agency will not, apparently, even have the power to seek information from EU institutions and member states or to probe them should they delay in providing it. It does not have the right of initiative and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said, it would be anomalous not to give the agency the third pillar remit, given that proposals from the third pillar regularly engage fundamental rights, as he explained. As we say in paragraph 110, we are disappointed that the Government have not taken a consistent approach in this matter and, despite having championed integrated human rights protection in the UK, support the two separate proposals. We recommend that if there are to be two separate agencies, they should both be in Vienna. That I should live to see that day! It seems a most forlorn hope, given the ambitions of states to have institutions in their own capital cities. I conclude with the words of a great Danish writer that cold have been written for this debate. He said:"““Nothing would have persuaded them””—" the courtiers—"““to admit that they could not see the clothes, for fear they would be thought stupid or unfit for their posts. So the Emperor set off under the high canopy, at the head of the great procession. It was a great success. All the people standing by and at the windows cheered and cried, ‘Oh, how splendid are the Emperor’s new clothes. What a magnificent train! How well the clothes fit!’ No one dared to admit that he couldn’t see anything, for who would want it to be known that he was either stupid or unfit for his post? None of the Emperor’s clothes had ever met with such success.""But among the crowds a little child suddenly gasped out, ‘But he hasn’t got anything on.’ And the people began to whisper to one another what the child had said. ‘He hasn’t got anything on.’‘There’s a little child saying he hasn’t got anything on.’ Till everyone was saying, ‘But he hasn’t got anything on.’ The Emperor himself had the uncomfortable feeling that what they were whispering was only too true. ‘But I will have to go through with the procession,’ he said to himself. So he drew himself up and walked boldly on holding his head higher than before, and the courtiers held on to the train that wasn’t there at all.””" In this debate, I feel young again.