Transport Schemes: EC Intervention (Hansard, 7 November 1991)

§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
My Lords, my right honourable friend has written to Commissioner Di Meana explaining that the schemes are urgently needed and have been subject to thorough and protracted environmental assessment. The department will continue to proceed with the necessary advance works for the schemes.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Can he confirm that the work on those schemes has not been interrupted as a result of the letter? Will he also comment on the rather strange procedure followed by the commissioner in writing in those terms, demanding cessation of work and apparently ensuring that copies of his letter went to various organisations in this country?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend that advance works for the schemes are proceeding. Construction is still some time off but we intend to proceed with it, subject to further action from Brussels.
As regards the notification from the Commission, it is rather curious that in August a private individual in the United Kingdom sent the department a letter which he had received from a Commission official saying that action was in prospect when the Government had not been sent a copy of that letter.

§ Lord Jay
My Lords, is the Minister aware that consultation on the M.3 extension scheme has now been proceeding vigorously for 16 years? Is not 16 years quite long enough?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I believe that it is in fact 20 years. There is no doubt that the scheme needs to go ahead and we shall press ahead with it as quickly as possible.

§ Lord Boardman
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this evidence of increasing bureaucracy in Brussels does not help to enlist public support for a satisfactory agreement at Maastricht?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. That is exactly the point which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made in response to this particular letter.

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, turning to the substance of the case rather than to the private letter, can the Minister confirm that since last January there has been a considerable amount of correspondence and discussion between the European Commission and the Department of Transport concerning these issues? Does he agree that, in those circumstances, when the Prime Minister said, as he did in Harare—supporting the Secretary of State for Transport's similar assertions—that the Government were not aware of any pending action and had no previous notice of it, that was not true? Will the Minister answer "yes" or "no" to that question?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, it is perfectly true. In those four cases we received letters from the Commission at various times: in 1989, in 1990 and in March 1991. Each of those letters was replied to promptly and there was no further inquiry from the Commission. Therefore one might have assumed that our reply had been satisfactory and that no action was pending. I also refer to a written answer on the subject given by the Commissioner in June 1990 in which he said that he saw no grounds for initiating the infringement procedure for incompatibility with Community law.
We take exception to the fact that, as I said to my noble friend, the letter was not even sent to the Government but to a private individual. Furthermore, rather than being a private letter to my right honourable friend, the Commissioner's letter of October, saying that he was initiating proceedings, was sent to the press first.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, does my noble friend recollect that, during the passage of the New Roads and Street Works Bill in the last Session, he made it clear that our country had accepted the European directive requiring environmental assessment before road schemes are started? Does he agree that we have obeyed that directive and that, having done so, have fully complied with European law, and that there was therefore no justification whatever for the letter that was written and circulated by the European Commissioner?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, as I said at that time and as my noble friend is quite right to remind the House, we accepted the directive. We published our own regulations to bring that directive into effect in 1988. Those regulations state specifically that schemes in the pipeline are not affected by the regulations. Those regulations were seen by the Commission in 1988. It made no comment on them. One assumes, therefore, that it found them satisfactory at that time.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is an irritation to be sorted out and not a reason for casting doubt on the value of our membership of the European Community?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, for those people affected by the schemes it is somewhat more than an irritation.

§ Lord Monson
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the whole affair is a manifestation of the almost quasi-religious conviction of certain powerful and important people on the Continent that national frontiers and separate national identities are on the way out morally and to all intents and purposes legally, and therefore that the British have no more right to decide what goes on within Britain than do people living hundreds of miles away in other parts of the EC?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I would go quite so far down that road as the noble Lord. We fully support the Commission's aim of ensuring that common procedures for environmental assessment are applied equally in all member states. However, decisions on specific projects, including the balance to be struck between environmental and social and economic factors, are entirely a matter for national governments.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, is it not insulting to this country and to the institutions of this country—our planning institutions, for example—that the Commissioner should write in such terms to the Government? Bearing in mind that this country lives up to its obligations and implements on time most of the directives, would it not be much better if Mr. Di Meana lectured his Italian compatriots, who have not implemented 60 per cent. of directives regarding communautaire practices? As regards the environment, would he not do much better to tell the northern Italians in particular that it is not for the good of the environment that they kill tens of millions of birds every year and everything else that moves?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, the noble Lord strays slightly from the Question on the Order Paper, but he makes some good points. When we sign up to a directive and introduce our regulations, we abide by them. The argument in this case concerns schemes, some of which were in transition as long ago as 20 years before the directive came into force. I understand that the Commissioner is attempting to take similar action against nine other European countries on the same point. Perhaps in this case the member states are right and the Commission is wrong.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, is it not—

Noble Lords
Order!

§ Lord Clinton-Davis
My Lords, first, just to put the matter beyond doubt, does the Minister agree that Italy was one of those countries sent an Article 169 letter at about the same time as that received by the Government from the Commissioner? Secondly, in order to clear up the dispute over the facts—and there is a dispute over the facts and a difference between what the Government say and what the Commission says; as always, I am trying to be helpful—would the Minister be prepared to put into the Library a clear version of all the correspondence and discussions that 325 have taken place between his officials and Commission officials in relation to those issues? Finally, would it not also be helpful in terms of encouraging open debate if the Minister were to disclose the terms of those Article 169 letters so that the public could know what was going on?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I understand that it is not normal practice to disclose the full text of those Article 169 letters. However, as the Commission appears to be willing to leak them to whomever happens to want to see them, no doubt people can find out about them in that way. I shall write to the noble Lord about the details that he requested in his supplementary questions. As regards our formal response to that letter, we have until 17th December to respond and we shall obviously do so by then.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, in view of the discussion on this extremely serious matter initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in the Chamber this afternoon, should not the Government consider examining all the procedures in the EC which can so drastically affect this nation?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, I am very much aware of the anxiety that has been expressed on this matter in your Lordships' House this afternoon and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I believe that he will be much encouraged by what has been said here this afternoon.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether perhaps, sooner or later, a decision will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to seek the opinion of the Court of Justice upon the legality of the Commissioner's conduct?

§ Lord Brabazon of Tara
My Lords, as I said, the next step is for us to respond by 17th December to the Article 169 letter. If the Commission is not satisfied, it will issue a reasoned opinion, to which we then have the right to respond. If the matter has still not been resolved, the Commission may then start proceedings before the European Court.