Anger grows over eurocrat’s secret evidence to Lords

BRITISH MEPs have reacted angrily after being banned from hearing a top eurocrat give evidence to a key inquiry into the UK’s renegotiation.

Jonathan Faull – who earns nearly £200,000 a year as the head of the European Commission’s Brexit taskforce – only agreed to appear if the session was held in private.

The public and journalists had been banned from the event at the Commission’s Brussels headquarters on Tuesday.

But yesterday it emerged that elected MEPs were also refused entry to the special meeting of the House of Lords EU select committee. One of those unable to attend was Tory eurosceptic David Campbell Bannerman, who has described the proceedings as a ‘public scandal’.

In another row over secrecy, it emerged that David Cameron has banned civil servants from speaking in favour of Brexit, even in a personal capacity.

Two Commons select committees have been refused permission to interview Foreign Office diplomat Iain Mansfield, author of an award-winning essay on Britain’s future outside the EU.

Andrew Tyrie, Tory chairman of the Treasury committee had appealed in vain to Mr Cameron to lift the ban. Mr Campbell Bannerman, co- chairman of the Conservatives for Britain campaign, revealed he asked to witness the hearing with Mr Faull, the most senior British eurocrat, but was told he would not be let in. The meeting was so shrouded in secrecy that other MEPs who made inquiries about it were told they were not even allowed to know what room it was taking place in for ‘security reasons’.

Last night Mr Campbell Bannerman said: ‘ It’s a public scandal that our own House of

‘Smoke and mirrors’

Lords committee is holding oral evidence sessions on EU reform in the heart of the Commission machine without allowing in interested MEPs.

‘It’s an example of the rotten core of an undemocratic EU: no transparency, no accountability and the only loyalty is to serving the EU not the British people.’ It has emerged that Frans Timmermans, First Vice President of the European Commission, was also due to appear before the committee of peers.

However, he refused to give evidence in a formal session and did not let secretaries take an on-the-record note of what he said to them.

Ukip deputy leader Paul Nuttall MEP said: ‘Just as burglars don’t like to work with the house lights on, so EU Commissioners hate being answerable in any way to the public.’

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of Vote Leave, said: ‘ The renegotiation has become an exercise in smoke and mirrors so it’s no surprise the Commission is being allowed to give evidence behind closed doors.’

The Lords EU committee has been holding the hearings during a two-day visit to Brussels as part of its inquiry into EU reform.

Leading MEPs, including the leaders of the British Labour and Tory delegations, yesterday gave evidence during a public session at the European Parliament.

A House of Lords spokesman last night said the Committee had been ‘expecting an on-therecord meeting’ with Mr Timmermans.

But ‘in the event, he preferred to talk off the record because he has no official role in the negotiations and is not in a position to speak for the Commission on UK issues’.

A transcript of Mr Faull’s evidence to the Lords committee is due to be published in the coming weeks.

IT is the essence of democracy that those who direct and implement policy should be fully accountable to the public.

No such rule applies at the European Commission, where transparency is a dirty word and voters are dismissed as an obstacle to smooth government.

Why else did Jonathan Faull, who earns nearly £200,000 of public money as head of the commission’s taskforce examining Brexit, insist that his evidence to the Lords EU committee on Tuesday was heard behind closed doors?

Indeed, the meeting was so shrouded in secrecy that British MEPs were not even allowed to know where in the EC headquarters it was taking place.

Yes, in exceptional circumstances, national security may demand officials give evidence in private.

But when even the heads of Britain’s intelligence agencies have testified publicly before parliamentary committees, what reason can there be for protecting Mr Faull from scrutiny?

With a referendum perhaps only six months away, it is vital that voters hear as much as possible about the implications of the momentous decision they face.

Yet it’s not only Mr Faull who won’t be heard. Now it emerges that David Cameron has banned all civil servants from speaking in favour of withdrawal, even in their private capacity.

Meanwhile, intensifying fears of a stitchup, he is said to have lined up Barack Obama to speak for the ‘in’ campaign.

This paper warmly supported the Prime Minister when he promised a public vote. If he aids and abets Brussels in skewing the debate, he will forfeit all the goodwill that he has earned.