---

Fundamental Rights Agency (EUC Report)

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, for introducing this debate. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on such a clear and articulate maiden speech. He will certainly add lustre to this House, and I look forward to his participation in future debates. I also thank the members of the EU Committee for these illuminating reports. I wish I could add that they have filled me with enthusiasm for the proposed agency and institute. Unfortunately, this is not so in either case. Indeed, the reports highlight much of what is wrong with the European Union. The proposed fundamental rights agency is one of the ever-expanding number of quangos and non-governmental organisations within the European Union. The proposal has been sternly criticised by the European Court of Human Rights, the Council of Europe’s Human Rights Commissioner and the European group of national human rights institutions. That this proposal—which at least has the virtue of not creating yet another new body, but reforms an existing one—has invited criticism from so many sources is deeply worrying. The agency is accused of being ill-defined, illegal and, quite possibly, completely unnecessary. It is understandable that the report comments that,"““it only serves to reinforce the views of its critics who argue against the proliferation of useless agencies in the EU””." The proposal seems to embody what the general public objects to about the European Union. It is symptomatic of the detachment of the European elite that they do not realise how frustrating it is for so many Europeans to see ever greater costs and restrictions imposed on them by an organisation over which they feel there is no control, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. If there is a genuine need for better data collection and analysis on human rights within the European Union, then the bodies involved in this area—and there are several—can set out to achieve this, instead of creating an agency which this report demonstrates to be full of confusion and conflict, with a lack of clarity about its thematic and geographic remit. There is also the unwieldy management structure, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. It is difficult to see whether the agency will add value and be effective, or whether it will just conflict with existing bodies. In addition to all these concerns, we come to the legal basis of the proposal. In spite of what we have heard, it is clear that there is significant doubt about the legality of this proposal, which was appreciated by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, in his Written Answer on 11 January. Why has this issue not already been clarified to everyone’s satisfaction at a much earlier stage? A cynic might answer that when the law does not suit its wish, the European Union will not let trivial matters, such as limits to its powers, get in its way. Given that there is no possibility of the European Union constitution being ratified throughout Europe in the near future and that we are not being asked to agree to any new treaty, it is hard to appreciate how this issue can be resolved unless the further discussion by the Council referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, revolves around how to interpret the relevant articles in new and ever more flexible ways to accommodate the proposal. So we are being asked to consider the proposal of an agency that will add another expensive layer of bureaucracy when the job it will do, the areas it will cover and the legal basis it will operate under are not decided. I have spent enough time pouring cold water on to the first proposal, and I am afraid I must now turn my attention to the second. It is very unfortunate that so many of the concerns that were expressed about the fundamental rights agency are also applicable to the institute for gender equality—I must say that when I look at the Benches opposite and I notice my inferiority to the noble Baroness, I long for a bit of gender equality. The possibility that the whole proposal does not have a legal basis is again mentioned. It would be wonderful if, occasionally, discussions on legal competence resulted in the conclusion that whatever is being proposed should be scrapped and the matter left to those bodies empowered by the public to carry out those duties. This proposal is another example of the ever-expanding number of quangos. It will waste public resources and unnecessarily increase the complexity of the European Union. I have read and understand the arguments for giving the issue of gender equality a greater prominence through a separate body, but I remain unconvinced. I do not see that having a parallel organisation to collect data solely on gender issues will add any measurable value to work already being done. The amount of resources that this proposal seeks to expend to protect against the possibility that the fundamental rights agency will not give gender issues their due significance is silly. Given the record of the European Union in taking every opportunity to extend its competence, I do not know for how long either of these agencies would remain data-collecting organisations. I fear that they would metamorphose into instruments for yet more direction from the European Union in areas better left to member states, areas where subsidiarity should be predominant. I am sorry to have been so negative throughout this speech. I would like to hope that my criticisms will not be interpreted as a lack of support for the eradication of discrimination on the grounds of gender, race or religion. I simply do not believe that these proposals will further those laudable aims.