---

EU Legislation (EUC Report)

My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention, but there are a number of reasons why the Irish voted against the Lisbon treaty. I do not think that losing a Commissioner was the principal one. It was one of many reasons why they voted against. I have read only today that they are to be given the chance to vote yet again. The EU does not like a vote against it. It will have another and the Irish will go on being asked to vote until they give the right answer. Is that democracy? I find the list of witnesses curiously unbalanced. Asking two former Commissioners, however distinguished, if they thought that it was right that the Commission should retain the sole right of legislation is rather like asking a fox if it wants to keep the keys to the hen-coop. You are unlikely to get the answer ““no””. Will the Secretary-General of the Commission Secretariat really tell the committee that the process of initiating EU legislation is opaque, undemocratic and should be changed? That question answers itself. Where were witnesses who may have given the committee a rather different flavour? Where was Bernard Connolly or Marta Andreassen, the former chief accountant of the European Commission? Where were some of the whistleblowers who have been sacked by the Commission for blowing those whistles? It would have been helpful to have had at least one witness who had a slightly different and a rather less laudatory view of the Commission’s activities. The noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, told the committee that it was a waste of energy to try to dress the Commission in some democratic legitimacy. He said that it does not need it. According to the noble Lord, the Commission should be judged on its ““operational legitimacy””, a yardstick your Lordships may think to be more appropriate for the KGB—I do not mean the ““Keep Gordon Brown”” campaign—rather than for the EU political driver. The noble Lord, Lord Brittan, was characteristically fulsome in praise of the Commission. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, quoted: "““The whole thing is a great bargain of some genius””," was his considered view. Well, maybe and maybe not. As the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, reminded us, this, "““great bargain of some genius””," had to resign en masse in 2000 when even the European Parliament found the stench of fraud and corruption around the Commission too much to stomach. The smell of roses does not hang around the present Commission. One of the members of the Commission was indicted for fraud. He was pardoned, but, none the less, he passed the scrutiny process, about which the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, told us. There still remains, let us say, a question or two about the purity of this body. I should like to pick up on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, said about the curious charade played between lobbyists and the Commission. I must admit that I was astounded to read in the report that the Commission uses taxpayers' money to fund certain lobby groups that it favours; for example, the World Wild Fund for Nature was examined. It appears that it received 600,000 euros from the Commission. Therefore, it was paid by the Commission, to lobby the Commission on matters that the Commission wishes to see brought forward. Is this not Alice in Wonderland stuff? I was sorry to note that the committee thinks: "““On balance, we consider such funding arrangements may be justified so long as they are transparent””." They are clearly not transparent as none of the committee members appeared to know that this cosy little scam existed. Finally, I should like to touch on something that I found interesting, which is central to our debate today. In one of the evidence sessions—at question 293—the noble Lord, Lord Wright, who was in the Chamber, asked of Mr Kim Darroch, the UKREP chief in Brussels: "““Have you ever known a House of Lords report influence the initiation of legislation?””." Mr Darroch replied: "““If I say no, my Lord, it does not mean that it has not happened, it just means that I cannot remember off-the-cuff””." In other words, it has not happened. The noble Lord, Lord Wright, pursued this and asked substantially the same question to the Minister for Europe, Mr. Jim Murphy, at question 466. Mr Murphy replied that there was no legislation, but that he thought there was something about mobile phone charges. In that same session, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, asked, somewhat plaintively, if Mr. Murphy could find any more examples, "““because sometimes we think we have spent hours going through this stuff, and where does it all end up?””." The noble Baroness, who I am pleased to see in her place, should not hold her breath. As we all know, these reports end up in the wastepaper baskets of the Commission, and that is that.