Scrutiny of European Business

HC Deb 17 November 1998 vol 319 cc778-807 5.27 pm

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett)

I beg to move, That this House approves the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the Scrutiny of European Business (HC 791) and takes note of the White Paper on the Scrutiny of European Business (Cm. 4095).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

I understand that, with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions: That the Resolution of the House of 24th October 1990 relating to European Community Legislation be rescinded and the following Resolution be made: That,

(1) No Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council or in the European Council to any proposal for European Community legislation or for a common position or joint action under Title V or a joint position, joint action or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union—

1. (a) which is still subject to scrutiny (that is, on which the European Scrutiny Committee has not completed its scrutiny) or
2. (b) which is awaiting consideration by the House (that is, which has been recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee for consideration pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) but in respect of which the House has not come to a Resolution).

(2) In this Resolution, any reference to agreement to a proposal includes—

1. (a) agreement to a programme, plan or recommendation for European Community legislation;
2. (b) political agreement;
3. (c) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b of the Treaty of Rome (co-decision), agreement to a common position, to a joint text, and to confirmation of the common position (with or without amendments proposed by the European Parliament); and
4. (d) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189c of the Treaty of Rome (co-operation), agreement to a common position.

(3) The Minister concerned may, however, give agreement—

1. (a) to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny if he considers that it is confidential, routine or trivial or is substantially the same as a proposal on which scrutiny has been completed;
2. (b) to a proposal which is awaiting consideration by the House if the European Scrutiny Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld pending consideration.

(4) The Minister concerned may also give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or awaiting consideration by the House if he decides that for special reasons agreement should be given; but he should explain his reasons—

1. (a) in every such case, to the European Scrutiny Committee at the first opportunity after reaching his decision; and
2. (b) in the case of a proposal awaiting consideration by the House, to the House at the first opportunity after giving agreement.

(5) In relation to any proposal which requires adoption by unanimity, abstention shall, for the purposes of paragraph (4), be treated as giving agreement.

That, upon the entering into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Resolution on Scrutiny of European Business (No. 2) shall have effect with the following modifications:

In paragraph (1) the words "a common position or joint action under Title V or a joint position, joint action or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union" are replaced by the words "a common strategy, joint action or common position under Title V or a common position, framework decision, decision or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union"; and

in paragraph (2)(c) the words "a common position, to a joint text, and to confirmation of the common position (with or without amendments proposed by the European Parliament)" are replaced by the words "a common position, to an act in the form of a common position incorporating amendments proposed by the European Parliament, and to a joint text".

That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session, Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be replaced by the following Standing Order (European Standing Committees):

".—(1) There shall be three standing committees, called European Standing Committees, to which shall stand referred for consideration on motion, unless the House otherwise orders, such European Union documents as defined in Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee) as may be recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee for further consideration.

(2) If a motion that specified European Union documents as aforesaid shall not stand referred to a European Standing Committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

(3) Each European Standing Committee shall consist of thirteen Members nominated for the duration of a Parliament by the Committee of Selection; and in nominating such Members, the Committee of Selection shall—

1. (a) have regard to the qualifications of the Members nominated and to the composition of the House; and
2. (b) have power to discharge Members from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution.

(4) The quorum of a European Standing Committee shall be three, excluding the chairman.

(5) Any Member, though not nominated to a European Standing Committee, may take part in the committee's proceedings and may move amendments to any motion made as provided in paragraphs (7) and (8) below, but such Member shall not make any motion, vote or be counted in the quorum; provided that a Minister of the Crown who is a Member of this House but not nominated to the committee may make a motion as provided in paragraphs (7) and (8) below; and the Government may appoint the precedence of notices of motion to be considered in each committee.

(6) The European Standing Committees, and the principal subject matter of the European Union documents to be referred to each, shall be as set out below; and in making recommendations for further consideration, the European Scrutiny Committee shall specify the committee to which in its opinion the documents ought to be referred; and subject to paragraph (2) of this order, the documents shall be referred to that committee accordingly

European Standing Committees	Principal subject matter
	Matters within the responsibility of the following Departments:
A	Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Environment, Transport and the Regions; Forestry Commission; (and analogous responsibilities of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices)
B	HM Treasury (including HM Customs and Excise); Social Security; Foreign and Commonwealth Office; International Development; Home Office; Lord Chancellor's Department; together with any matters not otherwise allocated by this Order

C	Trade and Industry; Employment and Education; Culture, Media and Sport; Health

(7) The chairman may permit Ministers of the Crown to make statements and to answer questions thereon put by Members, in respect of each motion relative to a European Union document or documents referred to a European Standing Committee of which a Minister shall have given notice; but no question shall be taken after the expiry of a period of one hour from the commencement of the first such statement: Provided that the chairman may, if he sees fit, allow questions to be taken for a further period of not more than half an hour after the expiry of that period.

(8) Following the conclusion of the proceedings under the previous paragraph, the motion referred to therein may be made, to which amendments may be moved; and, if proceedings thereon have not been previously concluded, the chairman shall interrupt the consideration of such motion and amendments when the committee shall have sat for a period of two and a half hours, and shall then put forthwith successively:

1. (a) the question on any amendment already proposed from the chair; and
2. (b) the main question (or the main question, as amended).

The chairman shall thereupon report to the House any resolution to which the committee has come, or that it has come to no resolution, without any further question being put.

(9) If any motion is made in the House in relation to any European Union document in respect of which a report has been made to the House in accordance with paragraph (8) of this order, the Speaker shall forthwith put uccessively—

1. (a) the question on any amendment selected by her which may be moved;
2. (b) the main question (or the main question, as amended);

and proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

(10) With the modifications provided in this order, the following Standing Orders shall apply to European Standing Committees:

• No. 85 (Chairmen of standing committees);
• No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees); and
• No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees)."

That Standing Order No. 143 (Select Committee on European Legislation) be replaced by the following Standing Order (European Scrutiny Committee):

(1) There shall be a select committee, to be called the European Scrutiny Committee, to examine European Union documents and—

1. (a) to report its opinion on the legal and political importance of each such document and, where it considers appropriate, to report also on the reasons for its opinion and on any matters of principle, policy or law which may be affected;
2. (b) to make recommendations for the further consideration of any such document pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees); and
3. (c) to consider any issue arising upon any such document or group of documents, or related matters.

The expression 'European Union document' in this order and in Standing Orders No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) and No. 119 (European Standing Committees) means—

1. (i) any proposal under the Community Treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with the European Parliament;
2. (ii) any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European Central Bank;
3. (iii) any proposal to define a common position or for joint action under Title V of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;
781
4. (iv) any proposal for a joint position, joint action or a convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;
5. (v) any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above) which is published by one Union institution for or with a view to submission to another Union institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration of any proposal for legislation;
6. (vi) any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.

(2) The committee shall consist of sixteen Members.

(3) The committee and any sub-committee appointed by it shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker.

(4) The committee shall have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

(5) The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time.

(6) The quorum of the committee shall be five.

(7) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee.

(8) Every such sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.

(9) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before such sub-committees.

(10) The quorum of every such sub-committee shall be two.

(11) The committee shall have power to seek from any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order its opinion on any European Union document, and to require a reply to such a request within such time as it may specify.

(12) The committee or any sub-committee appointed by it shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order or with any committee of the Lords on the European Communities, or any sub-committee of that committee, for the purposes of deliberating or examining witnesses.

(13) The committee shall have power to communicate to any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order its evidence or any other document relating to matters of common interest.

(14) The committees specified for the purposes of this order are those appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) including any sub-committees of such committees, the Select Committee on Public Administration, the Committee of Public Accounts, and the Environmental Audit Committee.

(15) Unless the House otherwise orders, each member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a Member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

That the following consequential Amendments to Standing Orders be made:

In Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents), line 3, leave out "Community documents" and insert "Union documents (as defined in Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee))".

In Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in Standing Committees), line 18, leave out "Community" and insert "Union".

In Standing Order No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration), line 20, at the end insert:

"(c) to communicate to the European Scrutiny Committee its evidence and any other document relating to matters of common interest; and

(d) to meet concurrently with the European Scrutiny Committee, or any sub-committee thereof, for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence.";

In Standing Order No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts),

line 17, after "departments)" insert "and to the European Scrutiny Committee",

line 21, at end add: (4) The committee shall have power to meet concurrently with the European Scrutiny Committee, or any sub-committee thereof, for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence.

In Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments)

line 31, after "and" insert "to the European Scrutiny Committee,"

line 39, at end insert "or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence;"

line 46, after "thereof' insert ", or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof,"

In Standing Order No. I52A (Environmental Audit Committee), in line 30, after "thereof' insert ", or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof,".

That, with effect from the coming into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee) shall have effect with the following Amendments:

line 21, leave out "to define a common position or for joint action" and insert "for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position";

line 23, after "Council" insert "or to the European Council"; and

line 24, leave out "joint position, joint action" and insert "common position, framework decision, decision".

That Mr. Ben Bradshaw, Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. Roger Casale, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Ms Jennifer Jones, Mrs. Rosemary McKenna, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Bill Rammell, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Shaun Woodward be members of the European Scrutiny Committee.

Mrs. Beckett

Our place in Europe is of vital importance and relevance to all of us. Equally, decisions taken in Brussels have an impact on all of us. That is why proper parliamentary oversight of the range of issues negotiated in Brussels and elsewhere is essential to protect our interests and, equally important, to bring Europe closer to the people. However, if we are to achieve those objectives, Parliament needs to be promptly and fully informed both of proposed European Union legislation and policies and of the Government's approach to negotiations.

That is why the Government undertook, in their election manifesto, to overhaul the parliamentary process for scrutinising European legislation. Our aims were to strengthen the role of Parliament in relation to European Union business; to improve democratic oversight of new legislation under negotiation in the EU; and to increase transparency and parliamentary awareness of how European Union business is conducted. We have explored a number of options for change and, last week, published a White Paper setting out proposals for improving the scrutiny arrangements that govern how Parliament deals with European Union business.

Arrangements for the scrutiny of European business by Parliament have been in place since 1973. Under them, the Government make available to Parliament proposals for European legislation coming before the Council of Ministers, as well as other documents that may have important policy, legislative or financial implications. An accompanying explanatory memorandum describes the purpose of the document, and the Government's views on it. In this House, the Select Committee on European Legislation—the Scrutiny Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)—considers each document, and may recommend that documents of particular importance are debated in Standing Committee, or by the whole House. The cornerstone of the scrutiny process is the parliamentary scrutiny reserve—n undertaking by the Government not to agree to a measure in the Council of Ministers until Parliament has completed its consideration of the proposal, unless there are special reasons for doing so. Similar arrangements operate in the other place.

The present scrutiny arrangements—which covered European Community business originally—are generally regarded as having worked well and, consequently, the Government propose today to build on that process and to make use of the experience of the arrangements that we have acquired. Although the arrangements for scrutiny have been updated periodically, they have not kept pace with developments in the EU. For example, the arrangements do not currently provide Parliament with the opportunity to comment on the full range of EU business. The common foreign and security policy, and justice and home affairs are not covered by existing procedures.

The Scrutiny Committee reported comprehensively on the scrutiny arrangements in July 1996, and made a wide range of recommendations. The Select Committee on Procedure endorsed those findings in March 1997. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons also considered the scrutiny arrangements as part of its wider remit to consider how the practices and procedures of the House should be modernised. In January this year, the Government submitted a memorandum to the Committee, outlining the key elements of a modern scrutiny system. The Modemisation Committee made its recommendations to improve scrutiny in June this year. The Government's White Paper sets out our proposals for meeting the recommendations.

Under the new arrangements, the Government would inform Parliament about proposals for European legislation and other important documents covering all three areas of EU activity. As before, the Scrutiny Committee would be able to examine the documents in detail on the basis of an explanatory memorandum, which would be supplemented by any further information that the Scrutiny Committee requested. The House would be able to debate any document it considered particularly important—normally in one of the European Standing Committees, although there would be flexibility for documents to be debated on the Floor of the House.

The new arrangements would allow more scope for specialist Select Committees of the House to be more closely involved in the scrutiny process—r example, where the measures under scrutiny fall within their area of expertise. The Scrutiny Committee would also be able to seek the views of departmental Select Committees on individual measures.

The scrutiny reserve would now cover not only European Community legislation but pre-legislative documents, and would be extended to cover business under the common foreign and security policy, and in the field of justice and home affairs. Obviously, the Government would continue to be able, in exceptional circumstances, to agree a measure before parliamentary scrutiny was completed.

Under the new arrangements, the Government would inform the Scrutiny Committee before a formal Council of Ministers of business expected to be on the agenda, and would provide additional evidence requested on particular items. Following the Council, the Government would provide Parliament with a written report on the outcome of the meeting. The Government will continue to make time available on the Floor of the House of Commons to debate European business before each European Council.

I turn now to the practical changes—the amendments needed to the Standing Orders and to the scrutiny reserve resolution to effect the new arrangements. The changes that we are proposing to both the scrutiny resolution and the Standing Orders follow in all but one respect the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee. The Committee recommended that the number of European Standing Committees be increased from two to five. The Committee recognised that there were practical problems involved in that, and suggested that the number of members of each Committee should be reduced from 13. After discussions through the usual channels, the best solution seems to be to keep the membership at 13, but to have only three Committees.

The proposed Standing Order change shows how the subject areas of EU documents would be divided between the three Committees. The new scrutiny resolution is set out in full, as are the two main Standing Orders affected by the implementation of the report. The new Standing Order No. 119, on European Standing Committees, will come into effect at the start of the next Session. Members will then be nominated to the three Standing Committees. The new Standing Order No. 143, on the European Scrutiny Committee, will take immediate effect.

There is also a motion on the Order Paper to appoint the current members of the Select Committee on European Legislation to the new Scrutiny Committee. There are a number of consequential amendments to other Standing Orders, mainly providing for communication between the European Scrutiny Committee and other Select Committees. The wording of the scrutiny resolution and of the Standing Orders will need to be altered slightly when the treaty of Amsterdam comes into force next year. As the changes are textual rather than substantial, the motions before the House tonight provide for those changes to be made at the appropriate time.

Before concluding, I wish to mention the effect of devolution on the arrangements. We presume that, in due course, the devolved bodies will wish to scrutinise EU business. We will be putting in place arrangements to facilitate that and to receive their comments.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)

My right hon. Friend—who has been sympathetic to this view—will be aware that we desperately need a change of culture in the House if we are to have proper scrutiny of the European Parliament. Many hon. Members are quite terrified of Europe, have never been there and have never even used their one free trip per year. I see from the report that the Select Committee has suggested that the one trip a year paid for by the House is not enough. Could we have more access in the next Session so that we can have that culture change, and so that people are not terrified and can learn about how European institutions work?

Mrs. Beckett

My hon. Friend—with a number of others—takes seriously the issue of how the House can better scrutinise European Union business, and strongly argues that a freer interchange between the House and the European institutions will facilitate that process. He will know that we are bound by the travel budget, but we are considering whether there is room for greater flexibility to facilitate the kind of exchange that he and others have in mind.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the speed with which the relevant documents can be provided to the Committees is important in making them more effective. There is no point in having an elaborate Committee system if documents arrive five or 10 hours before they are to be debated. Frankly, there are some of us who not only know where Brussels is, but worked there when we were not politicians, and have been known to speak one or two odd foreign languages—no odder than our English, I have to say. Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that we want to see what is being debated in time for the House to be fully informed? Otherwise, a lot of the proposals will not be useful.

Mrs. Beckett

I take my hon. Friend's point, and she is quite correct. The Government are mindful of the difficulties and problems caused to the House—and, indeed, to the Government—by the late arrival of documents. I am also well aware that my hon. Friend is in a happy position; what is very often the reason for such a delay—the difficulty in obtaining translations—is less likely to worry her, as, if I recall correctly, she speaks about seven languages, and is fluent, discursive and, frequently, more than effective as a parliamentarian in all of them.

The Government are mindful of the problems that will be caused to the scrutiny process if documents are not readily available, and we are doing all we can. My hon. Friend will know that the European Scrutiny Committee was instrumental in making proposals, which have been taken up across Europe, on the timing and handling of documents. We hope that technological developments will make the transmission of information easier. She is entirely right to say that that is the key to the working of the arrangements.

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)

I was paying attention to what the right hon. Lady said about the possibility that the devolved Parliaments might want to scrutinise various matters. Scrutiny of fisheries legislation, which is contentious and would rank highly enough to be discussed in both Parliaments, might result in two different Parliaments reaching different conclusions. My request is merely for information. Does the right hon. Lady have any idea how we would overcome the problem of the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament coming to entirely different conclusions on the same matter? How would we proceed?

Mrs. Beckett

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern. We must explore the procedures and how they can interact between a fresh Assembly, or Parliament in Scotland, and this place. The hon. Gentleman knows where the responsibility for those matters lies.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

There are already arguments that a Minister from a devolved Scottish Parliament could be a lead Minister in negotiations and discussions. Does the right hon. Lady envisage the right of a Scottish Parliament not to implement a directive that this House considers fit to be implemented? That is the critical factor. How does the right hon. Lady envisage negotiations taking place to bring the Parliaments to a conclusion on those matters?

Mrs. Beckett

I have some respect for the hon. Lady. Perhaps I misunderstood her question. No doubt we shall explore that issue at length in future. I almost get the impression—I say this with respect—that she is thinking that the Scottish National party might want not only to sever the Union with England, but to leave the European Union. That seems to me to be the purport of her saying that the Scottish Parliament might refuse to implement directives.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)

The right hon. Lady will be aware that a great deal of the initial work on Community business is undertaken by officials from the United Kingdom and other member states' Governments attending management committees and similar structures as they develop ideas at a formative stage. Will she consider publishing lists of the committees that are sitting and stating the type of work that they are doing? One of Parliament's problems is acquiring knowledge of business early enough for us to be able to influence it by debate in the House.

Mrs. Beckett

I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. I am not sure that publishing lists of committees that are meeting is the right way in which to proceed, because that may result in a burdensome amount of information without being very illuminating.

The Government and the European Scrutiny Committee, as it will be, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale, have drawn attention to the great importance of pre-legislative scrutiny and involvement at an early stage. Although that is an issue for the House, rather than the Government, and must be carefully considered on grounds of cost, I suspect that it was at the back of the minds of those who suggested a national Parliament office in Brussels. We shall all, over time, give more and more consideration to how it is possible for the House to be informed and to be able to have an input in the early days, when it is possible to have the greatest influence on the formation of proposals.

The Government believe that the new arrangements for the scrutiny of European Union matters which are before the House will allow Parliament to carry out a comprehensive, thorough and effective examination of the full range of business across all three pillars. The adoption of the new arrangements and the changes to Standing Orders will contribute to making the EU policy process and EU legislation more democratic, more transparent and better understood. That can only be a benefit to the House and the country.

5.44 pm

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire)

The Opposition support the general drift of the remarks of the Leader of the House. We were happy to agree to the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, and we accept the reasons that the right hon. Lady gave for amending one of those recommendations and saying that there should be three Committees rather than five. We are glad that those Committees will each have 13 members.

The whole House owes a debt to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and those who serve on his Committee. That work is largely unsung, but not unhonoured because the Select Committee performs an extremely important task. Many hon. Members are barely aware of the Committee's existence, but those of us who are aware are exceptionally grateful to him and his colleagues for their hard work.

If one wants an indication of the hard work that is necessary, one has only to go to the Vote Office, as I did earlier during the Division, where I picked up a list of European Community documents for the week ending Saturday 14 November. As most hon. Members will know, a similar list is produced every week. The current list names 49 documents, ranging over issues as diverse and important as food law, landfill waste, air transport competition rules, sound financial management and renewable sources of energy. I shall not read the whole list. That reveals the sheer weight of paper that is coming in week by week, day by day.

It is crucial that Members of the House have the chance to have those documents examined on our behalf. I say "on our behalf' because we largely depend on those hon. Members who are appointed to the Select Committee and the European Standing Committees, and those who will serve on the three Committees that we shall, I hope, have after today's debate. It is vital that the Government honour their pledge and responsibility to make sure that important matters are not agreed to in Europe until the House has had an opportunity, via its Committees, to scrutinise the documents and, if necessary, to debate and vet them in detail.

We have to improve our relations with European institutions by scrutinising with greater care—that is no criticism of those who currently scrutinise these matters—the documents that emanate from the European Union. I do not say "from Europe" because, of course, we are in Europe. I was interested to hear that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) does not live in Europe, but most of us think that we do.

Mr. Sheerman

Whether we disagree about being pro-Europe or anti-Europe—I am a passionate pro-European—the hon. Gentleman knows that I was referring to recommendation 39 in the report. It is strange that Britain has been a member of the European Union for a long time, but that hon. Members have one trip a year to a mainland European institution. I want the hon. Gentleman to join me in the campaign to make sure that we educate hon. Members so that they can go to Brussels and Strasbourg, and find their way around and have knowledge and perception of the culture. He will know, as do those of us who regularly go to those institutions, that we must do our homework, and if we do not travel to Europe to do so, we shall be unable to fulfil our function as Members of Parliament. Too many hon. Members do not even use their one trip a year. I get passionate about the matter because I want to educate my colleagues on both sides of the House.

Sir Patrick Cormack

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree that it would be desirable if more of our colleagues had the opportunity to use that facility more often. We are in favour of greater flexibility in the use of the sums that are available. Of course, hon. Members are subject to no prohibition on visiting European institutions whenever they wish. I know that the hon. Gentleman is making a point about the trip that is paid for, and yes, we agree that it would be desirable that there should be greater flexibility, so that, for instance, those who adamantly do not wish to avail themselves of the facility may pass it on to others, and so that others who really want to make the trip may do so more often. I believe that all hon. Members should be able to use the facility, and I am personally in favour of extending it.

I understand why the Leader of the House is not with us any more—she courteously explained why she could not be here now—but I hope that, when the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office winds up the debate, he will spell out more clearly the Government's attitude and say whether the Government are prepared to seek further means to enable hon. Members to visit European institutions more often.

I should also be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would say something about the national Parliament office. The Leader of the House mentioned it in passing, but she did not spell out the Government's response to the clear recommendation by the Modernisation Committee that there should be a national Parliament office, representing Westminster in Brussels. I should like to know precisely what the Government intend to do about that and what they envisage would be the participation in that national Parliament office of the devolved Parliament in Scotland and the devolved Assembly in Wales.

On that subject, it is my understanding—I hope that, if I am wrong, the Parliamentary Secretary will correct me—that the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly would have a specific role to play where responsibility was devolved, but that, where responsibility had not been devolved, it remained firmly and clearly with the House, so that Committees of the House would examine such subjects. I should be grateful for clarification.

To my mind, we need as much liaison and contact as possible if European institutions are to work and if enmity is not to be built up between the House and European institutions. Frequently, enmity is based on ignorance. The more people know and understand, the more they are able intelligently to debate.

Absurdities come from Brussels from time to time, and it is right that they should be denounced. It is important to ensure that the new Committees do not have sole and exclusive responsibility for debating European documents, and it is incumbent on Government to try to find more time in which those key issues may be debated on the Floor of the House. I know that hon. Members who are not voting members of Committees may attend the European Scrutiny Committees, but that is not quite the same as holding a debate in the Chamber.

I hope that, when the Leader of the House and her colleagues consider the next parliamentary Session, they will pay regard to the time that is allowed for European debates in the Chamber. It is important that such matters be debated. Moreover, given the changes that will occur within the European Union in the next few months, there will be greater and greater focus on those European institutions, and greater interest in debating what goes on there and what emanates from them. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about that.

Although the matter is not strictly relevant to the subject that we are discussing at the moment, I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will bear in mind the fact that there is an institution called the European Parliament, with which it is important that we seek to build better relations. Some years ago, I was one of those who voted against the Bill, supported by the present Baroness Thatcher, that provided for the holding of direct elections to the European Parliament. I did so because I wanted there to be a longer period in which delegated members went to that Parliament from this place; I wanted to maintain the connection between the Parliaments. I believe that that was a reasonable reason for rebelling against the Bill.

There is less contact between the European Parliament and this place than I would wish. I must not stray too far in that direction because it is not strictly relevant to the Modernisation Committee's report. I merely add that the report reveals the constructive attitude that what comes from Europe is relevant to what we do here—not more important than what we do here, but of real importance to what we do here—an attitude that I believe should be universally adopted.

In so far as the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee will enable us the better to examine and scrutinise, I welcome them. In so far as the Government's response to the report is positive, I welcome that, but I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would touch on the points that I have raised in my short speech.

5.55 pm

Mr. Jimmy Hood (Clydesdale)

I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for publishing the White Paper and laying it before the House and congratulate him on doing so. I also thank the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), for the work that he and the Committee have done on the subject. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) kindly made some pleasant comments about the work of the Select Committee on European Legislation, which are very much appreciated.

In my enthusiasm for this important exchange, I cannot escape a sense of foreboding, inasmuch as I feel that I am attending a funeral and a birth at the same time. Tonight, we are ending the life of the Select Committee on European Legislation and starting the life of its successor, the European Scrutiny Committee. I remember hearing, in my early years, that sometimes it was better to celebrate a funeral and mourn a birth, on the basis that the newly born had all its trials and tribulations to come, and that the end of a life ended the misery of living", but I am sure that that is not the case in this regard. Nevertheless, the Committee that is about to pass on, which I have had the pleasure of chairing, has had its trials and tribulations over the years, and I very much look forward to the new life in the scrutiny process that will be engendered by the proposals.

If I may, I shall further burden the House with a short reflection on the work that has been done since the Committee's inception in 1973. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, the Committee, in its 25-year life, has had one of the busiest agendas of any Select Committee. Its subject matter is not known for its sexiness, but, for the statisticians among us, the European Legislation Committee has dealt with about 35,000 directives and documents—almost four directives a day for the past 25 years.

Sadly, much of that work has not received the recognition that I humbly suggest that it might, and should, have received. Only in the past few years—and, more important, in the past 18 months, under the new Labour Government—has the Committee's work been properly appreciated. I make no complaint about that except to say that, just maybe, the great ignorance that exists—inside and outside this place—on European issues can in small measure be attributed to the lack of political will and/or understanding of the importance of our European Union membership.

The White Paper presented to us today by the Leader of the House marks a watershed in parliamentary procedures. It recognises the importance of scrutiny in our democracy. Paragraph 5 on page 2 of the White Paper states: the scrutiny arrangements have not kept pace with the need to ensure comprehensive Parliamentary oversight of developments in the EU and to make transparent and understandable the processes by which EU policy and legislation are made. That is the issue that we are addressing today.

We have entered a new era of political and constitutional reform. In 18 months, the Government have passed legislation on the devolution of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and London. We have held four referendums. This new era is about good, representative politics and the need for scrutiny within our parliamentary process. As we prepare to enter the next century, better, more effective scrutiny is very much part of that change.

I shall now comment briefly on specific issues in the report. These welcome proposals should be viewed not as the end of the modernisation process, but as the beginning of a modern model of scrutiny. At this juncture, I record my thanks and that of my Committee to the staff, past and present, who have served the European Legislation Committee over the years. Their task of examining, researching, briefing, investigating and reporting is a colossal responsibility which they have taken in their stride. The House owes them a great debt of gratitude, and I so record that this afternoon.

We are delighted that the paper includes most of the suggestions put to the Procedure Committee by the ELC. However, I shall offer one or two comments in order to, first, put down a marker for further consideration; and, secondly, reassure my colleagues on departmental Select Committees that the changes will serve and assist them in the special scrutiny of their Departments. It is not my Committee's intention to step into their areas of responsibility—on the contrary, most of what we do will complement and support their good work. There will be no turf wars.

The ELC did not deal with merit considerations, and the new European Scrutiny Committee will not do so in the future. Our interest in the second and third pillars will be to assess their legal and political significance and/or importance. In practice, the conduit for information will be both ways. That will improve the scrutiny of legislation and offer information support, if required, to our colleagues on other Select Committees. Our proposal that the ESC should have the right to promote a "Floor debate" was recognised by the Government, but not accepted. The Government conceded that there was merit in our suggestion, but they have not agreed to it at this stage. That is regrettable, but I ask them to keep it in mind as we continue to learn from our experience.

The value of Standing Committee debate has been somewhat undervalued in the past. I am confident that the increase in the number of Standing Committees will add value to and encourage the specialised scrutiny of legislation and documents. That increase is welcome. The Modernisation Committee recommended an increase to five, but three is better than two. Although five would have been better still, I am reasonably comfortable with three. However, I hope that the Government will consider carefully the effectiveness of the extra Standing Committees and, if necessary, revisit the matter at a later stage.

I came to the House in June 1987 and, within a few weeks, I was a member of the European Legislation Committee. I have been its Chairman since 1992, and it has been a great honour to serve with many distinguished right hon. and hon. Members over the years. I have had the privilege of travelling all over Europe and have met Prime Ministers, Presidents and some royalty. I have many happy memories from my membership of the ELC that I will treasure and value. There is also some sadness. When the European Legislation Committee is wound up tonight, I will fondly remember former Members Jimmy Boyce and George Buckley, who served on the Committee and were good personal friends.

In my first 10 years as a member of the ELC, I found myself apologising for the then Conservative Government's xenophobic anti-Europe policy. My first announcement when I met any European colleagues at conferences or meetings was, "I am not a Tory." I am assured that several Conservatives do not share the views of the then Government. However, I am delighted to be a member of a Government who have grasped this moment in our history to embrace the collective advantages of being a major player and influence within the European Union.

The new Labour Government understand and accept readily and enthusiastically that our country's national interests are better protected and advanced by co-operation with our partners than by the narrow nationalism that has done us great harm in Europe and throughout the rest of the international community. This paper is part of that new politics. I welcome it and I applaud the Government for it.

6.6 pm

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

At the risk of contributing to this consensual atmosphere, I wish to place on record my views and those of my colleagues regarding the important work of the Select Committee on European Legislation. I pay tribute to its Chairman, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), his colleagues and staff who, on behalf of the House, have done extremely important work for the whole nation, which has gone largely unnoticed within this place, let alone outside it.

We would not be discussing this issue if we were not conscious of the fact that there are—in the words of the hon. Member for Clydesdale—inadequacies in the present situation and that we can do better. I agree with everything that he and his Committee and the former Procedure Committee, on which I served under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), have recommended in the past. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has based its proposals this evening on those recommendations. As a member of that Committee, I am delighted to add my voice to the recommendations of the Leader of the House and the deputy shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), that we should pass the measure without dissent.

I visited some German farmers two and a half or three years ago and I recall our conversation vividly. They said, "We in Germany implement every single tiny reference in every single directive. Every element of every directive from Brussels is implemented in full. Of course, in France, they do not take any notice and in Italy they do not know that there is such a directive." I was forced to add, "In Britain, my friends, we gold-plate directives." A constant preoccupation of hon. Members on both sides of the House is that, even when directives reach us, we discover that their implications are extremely complicated and convoluted. They are often added to—there is an accretion of different regulations when a directive reaches Whitehall. The House is still grappling with that problem.

The proposals before us improve that situation, but the hon. Member for Clydesdale is absolutely right: this is not the end but the beginning of an improved process. We cannot be satisfied that scrutiny is as effective as it should be, even when the new proposals are in place. I hope that, in trying to improve them, we shall not think that that is the end of the matter. We shall move forward on a transitional and experimental basis.

The terms of reference and the name of the Committee are of little importance, except in demonstrating to the House and to the world outside that we shall take the issue a great deal more seriously than we did in the recent past.

The question is not what we should scrutinise, or even how we should scrutinise it, but when we should do so. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) both spoke of the need for the House to be aware of proposals as they are developing in the European institutions, rather than when they have become a firm proposition. The proposal that a Minister who may be about to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers should come before the Committee, and explain the range of options that may be available to him and his opposite numbers in the Council, is extremely important.

The section on the Council of Ministers in the document before us represents a significant step forward. If, for example, next week the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, after meeting his colleagues at the Agriculture Council to discuss the important issue of the beef export ban, could come back and explain the process whereby a decision was reached and what the decision was, that would contribute to the transparency and open government to which the Government are committed.

I share the view of the hon. Member for Clydesdale that it would have been preferable if there were five Standing Committees with a smaller membership—perhaps nine. That would be only a slight increase on the proposed three Standing Committees, each with a membership of 13. That would be a sensible way to move forward, as there will still be a considerable work load on the three Committees.

There would have been another advantage, which has not yet been mentioned in the debate: there could have been some cross-reference between membership of the departmental Select Committees and the more specialist Standing Committees. That is difficult to achieve at present and will continue to be difficult with only three Standing Committees, because the necessary range of expertise and the work load will be so great. Some cross-reference and sharing of expertise would be helpful.

My final point relates to the way in which we deal with European business in the Chamber. I have not served on the Standing Committees but, in many cases, after careful analysis of the peculiar way in which a directive has developed and how it will apply in this country, and possibly after a Minister had retreated from his initial position on the proposal, the way in which the Committee reported back to the House left much to be desired. Many hon. Members have felt frustrated that the exercise of scrutiny did not result in effective decision making by all Members in the House. The proposals may offer the possibility of genuine improvement in that process.

We must have enough time to deal properly with European matters in the Chamber. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), is not a member of the Modernisation Committee, but I hope that he will take back to the Leader of the House the message that the effective involvement of the whole House in the scrutiny process will mean that more business must be transferred from the Floor of the House to some other procedure in a different part of the House.

All the proposals are tentative and experimental, and their effect will be cumulative. We would not expect a dramatic change—that is not how we change our procedure in this place. I know that, having battled on the issue for many years, the right hon. Member for East Devon will agree.

The proposals are an important step forward, but I have one remaining concern. Paragraph 47 states: We recommend that Departments individually and the Government collectively provide timely and accurate information to Parliament on European Union matters. If mistakes occur, corrective action must be taken to meet the needs of Parliament. For this purpose, a designation of responsibility as outlined above is essential. The European Legislation Committee"— which, I think, is a reference to the European Scrutiny Committee— should continue to monitor the situation. As the experiment moves forward, it is important that we monitor it closely. There is a long way to go, and this is a step in the right direction. It is a strength of the House that we never stop permanently—we are always prepared to move on. I believe that we shall have to return to the matter in a few years, to ensure that the process continues to achieve more effective scrutiny of important legislation that affects all our fellow citizens.

6.14 pm

Ms Jenny Jones (Wolverhampton, South-West)

I shall not depart from the consensus that is apparent in the debate. I am one of the newest members of the Select Committee on European Legislation. I was keen to be on the Committee and was extremely pleased to be appointed to it, but it was interesting to hear the reaction of some of my colleagues. They wondered why I wanted to be a member of that Select Committee and suggested that it was not the sexiest one. I found that an astonishing remark, as I had not realised that there was a beauty contest among Select Committees.

In the short time that I have served on the Committee, two features have struck me. First, its work is important, because the European Union impinges on all our lives. I have been impressed by the expertise and experience of the members who have served on the Committee much longer than I have. It is pleasing to know that that well of experience has been recognised. There is a good base for the Committee's enhanced role.

Secondly, I was struck by the dedication and hard work of the staff. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that he was astonished at the amount of work that we get through. I was pleased that the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), paid tribute to the work of the staff.

I do not disagree with anything that any of the previous speakers have said, but I shall add two comments. First, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House rightly said, whatever we may feel about the United Kingdom's membership of the EU, it touches on all our lives. As an institution, it has changed rapidly and developed significantly since scrutiny in this Parliament began. The way in which we scrutinise European business must keep pace with the rapid developments there.

Another reason why we must improve scrutiny arises from the democratic deficit in the European Union. Everyone knows that the only elected part of the EU, the Parliament, is probably the weakest in terms of balance of power, and the Council of Ministers is probably the strongest. We alone cannot do anything about that, although the Select Committee discusses the matter from time to time.

One of the most significant recommendations is the introduction of pre-Council and post-Council scrutiny, to which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred. That will enable us to find out much more about what goes on at the Council of Ministers. As that is probably the most powerful of the three institutions that make up the EU, and the one accused of meeting in the greatest secrecy, anything that this Parliament can do to shine a light on the work of the Council of Ministers and to bring greater transparency not only for our sake, but for the sake of the people who voted us here, is valuable.

My second comment relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in an intervention. The efficiency and effectiveness of any scrutiny system depend partly on what supports and facilitates it.

The Committee has long advocated the use of information technology and e-mail—the electronic transmission of documents from the EU to the member state Parliaments. Documents have to be received and scrutinised and questions have to be asked within the tight time scale of six weeks, so e-mailing would reduce the time taken to receive documents from 10 days to a matter of hours.

If we are to strengthen scrutiny, we must allow as long as possible for that scrutiny to be effective. We need every minute that is at our disposal. I am pleased to say that, buried in the back of the report, there is a discussion on the electronic transmission of documents. Last autumn, the Select Committee raised that matter with the then Minister responsible and we were assured that pilots would take place to assess its feasibility. I hope that that matter will be pushed forward, because we are particularly concerned about it.

As I said, I welcome the Select Committee's recommendations. I look forward to the transformation of the European Legislation Committee into the European Scrutiny Committee. I have taken the precaution of looking at the Order Paper and I am pleased to see that my name has been put forward for membership of that Committee, which is a relief.

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was right to say that this is an opportunity to bring greater transparency to, and understanding of, the work of the EU which, in turn, will mean greater democracy.

6.21 pm

Sir Peter Emery (East Devon)

First, I thank those hon. Members who have paid tribute to the original Procedure Committee which made the recommendations on which the scrutiny procedures of the House have been based. I rather feel as though I have been here before, and I have no doubt that I shall be here again.

It is interesting to elaborate on what the Leader of the House said about the success of our scrutiny activities, inadequate though some of us may think they have been. Without doubt, Britain considers the details of European regulations to a much greater extent than any other member state.

There are two interesting alternatives. Members of the Belgian Parliament meet Belgian Members of the European Parliament, but to debate broad European topics rather than regulations. There is no real consideration of regulations at all. Danish Ministers cannot approve a decision in the Council of Ministers until the matter has been considered by the Danish Parliament, but, again, the Danish Parliament does not consider the regulations. They are more or less approved en masse, and they are no great restriction on the Council of Ministers. Therefore, the amount of detail into which the two Committees have gone deserves the greatest praise.

I thank the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) for his work as Chairman of the Select Committee. When he entered the House, he was something of a revolutionary, but the Committee has made him a most responsible Member of the House, something about which I am delighted. As he will know, I say that in the nicest way possible.

The hon. Gentleman is correct about the number of the Committees. He will recall that the original recommendation, way back in the mid-1980s, was that there should be five. At that time, my Government rejected that. I moved an amendment to the motion before the House and, with the Procedure Committee, divided the House, because we believed that there should have been five. Given the range of material to be considered, the relatively small number of 13 Members have a massive job to do, and that frequently discourages the experts from coming forward.

We recommended five then and I am sad to say that, again, the Government have rejected the recommendation of five, limiting it to three. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) is willing to go along with that. The original Procedure Committee felt that the experts in the House on certain subjects should serve on those Committees. If those Committees are broken down, as is suggested in the Modernisation Committee's report on the scrutiny of European business, one sees how the division into five would allow experts on agriculture and health to specialise in one Committee, experts on the Treasury and home affairs to specialise in one Committee and experts on foreign affairs and trade and industry to specialise in one Committee. In those circumstances, specialists would be much more willing to serve on those Committees than they are at the moment.

Even I can quickly calculate that 13 times three is 39, but, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), and the Select Committee, suggested, a Committee could easily comprise nine Members and, as nine times five is 45, only six additional Members would have to be allocated. In this Parliament, that would be four Labour Members and two Opposition Members. I cannot believe that the Whips could not find that number of Members. Even 11 times five, which is 55, would mean only 16 additional Members–11 Labour Members and 4 Conservatives and one Liberal or other Opposition Member, or three and two, whatever the division may be. With a Labour majority, there would be no great difficulty in finding that number of Members to man the Committees. Therefore, a great opportunity has again been rejected by the House in moving to only three rather than the original recommendation of five.

Mr. Tyler

As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say, I very much support him on that. However, he must choose his words with care. Just now, he said that the House has rejected this proposal. Technically, at this moment, the matter has been agreed only through the usual channels—between the main Opposition and those on the Government Front Benches. I support the hon. Gentleman and I hope that, in due course, the Government and the Conservative party will think again.

Sir Peter Emery

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I shall do my best to make the Conservative party see sense on this. I have been trying for 16 years now. I might succeed in another four or five years. We move slowly. We have gone from two to three, but I hope that we can make the last dash fairly quickly.

One thing that has not been dealt with in the report is the problem that arises in a Committee if a Committee decides on something that is contrary to the original motion moved by the Government and contrary to what the Government wish. That may be the Committee's decision but, when the matter then goes to the House, the Government may move the original motion, which is not what the Committee had agreed. Many people do not realise that what the Committee has decided is not what comes before the House.

The great difficulty is that a motion has to be moved by a Minister, and the Government will not move a motion that they do not agree with. To that I say that we should have amended the Standing Orders so that an hon. Member would be allowed to move an amendment to a motion, although the Government would, of course, be able to reject it and then table their own amendment. The aspect that only the original motion, but never the decision of the Committee, is referred to the House is misleading; it should have been dealt with, but it has not. "The Scrutiny of European Union Business", which was presented to Parliament by the Leader of the House, recommends: Informal links with the European Parliament should be encouraged. Labour Members have said that there should be more visits by all Members of Parliament. That is something with which I do not necessarily disagree, but I believe that Select Committees should take the opportunity that exists within the present regulations on visiting to set up links with European Parliament Committees dealing with the same areas.

Each Select Committee should appoint a rapporteur who would make it his duty to visit either Strasbourg or Brussels—whichever was necessary—to see what a European Parliament Committee was getting up to. In that way, we could have an input before reports were decided. Once those reports have been published, the chances of us having any input are nil.

That process would be fairly involved, but it would mean more direct contact between our Select Committees and the equivalent Committees in the European Parliament. I am not saying that that would be perfect—in many ways, it would be difficult—but it would be a step towards achieving an input for Members of Parliament in decisions made by the Committees of the European Parliament. There would certainly be a strengthening of links between this Parliament and the European Parliament, something that I should like to see happen.

I am delighted that the Government have moved in this direction in respect of the Modernisation Committee's recommendations. With the exception of the Government's proposal on the number of Committees, I commend them to the House.

6.32 pm

Mr. Roger Casale (Wimbledon)

I am delighted to participate in the debate as a member of the European Legislation Committee, because this is a watershed in our development. This morning, I awoke as a member of that Committee, but, having checked the Order Paper, I know that I shall awake tomorrow as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee because today we are about to change our Committee's name.

Hon. Members have mentioned the lack of recognition by some of our colleagues for the work of the European Legislation Committee. My constituents sometimes ask what Committee I am on. When I say that I am a member of the European Legislation Committee, they ask, "What is that and what are you up to?" Some of them think that I am involved in some sort of seditious activity to do with Europe.

The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) made the unusual suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), the Chairman of our Committee, was something of a revolutionary before he had any contact with Europe, but has now become a rational man. I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that some of his colleagues—perhaps through their contact with Europe—have gone in the opposite direction.

The work of our Committee is important in terms of safeguarding the interests of my constituents and of the national interest in Europe, and I am proud and pleased to be a member of it. I sometimes liken our work to that of customs officers at a border. All sorts of directives, regulations and recommendations from the European Commission and the Council of Ministers come across for decision by the Government and the House. Our Committee stands next to the conveyor belt, and when we see something that may have political, legal or financial implications, we stop the belt, unpack that directive or regulation and examine it more closely.

We do this aspect of scrutiny work very well, and that is reflected in the report of the Modernisation Committee and the Government's response. As we come to the end of this Session, the work of our Committee has been given a clean bill of health and our Chairman and the Committee have received a good end-of-term report. However, the recommendations in the Modernisation Committee's report and in the Government's response are shaped by much wider processes than procedural considerations in the House—important as they are—or by the work and the momentum of our Committee itself.

I should highlight the dynamic context which has resulted in the new proposals. On the proactive side, there is a clearly defined need for greater scrutiny of decisions taken in Brussels. My constituents want that, the country wants that and it is good that the Government want that, too. The Committee has the ambition, which I think is shared by the Government, for not only more, but better, scrutiny, and the proposals before us go in that direction. What we do, we should do well, and if anything can be done to enable our Committee to do its work better, that is all to the good.

Many of the proposals in the report and in the Government's response are shaped by that ambition. In particular, the closer co-operation that is foreseen with other Select Committees, the European committees of other national Parliaments in the EU and the European Parliament will lead to a greater level of experience, better information about EU decision making, an exchange of best practice and improved communication between the Government and the House. Other Committees of the House and committees across Europe will be partners, not competitors, in the scrutiny role with a common endeavour to do the job well.

On the reactive side, we should consider these reforms in the context of the evolving nature of the EU, and especially in the context of the treaties of Amsterdam and of Maastricht. In many ways, the report could be read as a parliamentary response to the intergovernmental treaty signed up to at Maastricht by the previous Government.

The Maastricht treaty is worthy of particular emphasis, because much in the report is aimed at scrutiny of the second and third pillar structures. Third pillar scrutiny represents a pyrrhic victory for the Committee, because, subsequently at Amsterdam, many of the those third pillar responsibilities and functions were transferred into the first pillar. Moreover, the present Government have opted out of the aspects relating to asylum, immigration and border control.

The remit of our Committee is being broadened and its responsibilities strengthened. All that will lead to greater and more informed dialogue with our Government about what they are doing in Brussels on our behalf. Thanks to the report and the Government's response, if we do move towards the stars of the European Union—towards closer co-operation—we shall do so with our feet and those of this Parliament firmly on the ground.

6.38 pm

Mr. Humfrey Matins (Woking)

I speak with caution because other right hon. and hon. Members have contributed greatly to the scrutiny of European legislation in the House. I wish to make just one point. Last week, as a member of the Home Affairs Select Committee, I went to Brussels for a European Parliament conference on EU fraud and cross-border crime. During the conference, Members of the European Parliament of different parties asked me what the British public thought about their proposals to create a common EU criminal law system to cope with those problems, a common judicial area and a common police force. I had to scratch my head and tell the truth: the British public are not aware of such proposals. "All right," they said, "What is the British Parliament's view on those proposals?" Again, I scratched my head and said that many of us in the House were unaware of much that comes from the European Parliament and other institutions.

Some of our Select Committees, such as the Home Affairs Select Committee, should take a real interest in what happens in the European Parliament and elsewhere. Whether we like it is irrelevant; we should know more. I do not feel well informed enough. If this discussion results in better oversight and scrutiny, and more awareness among our colleagues of what is happening among our European colleagues, that must be good.

6.40 pm

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) for his work. I have felt the heat when he has scrutinised me, as a former Minister, on fishery matters and I know the excellence of the job that he did. The role of Fisheries Minister introduced me to Europe and made me realise that the House gets involved far too late in the process of scrutiny to have a real influence on shaping United Kingdom policies when they go before the Council. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary who will reply to this debate, and the Leader of the House, to look again at mechanisms whereby Parliament may be advised much earlier on some of the formative thinking that is going on.

When I was a Minister, both in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and at the Treasury, I used to get my officials to produce for me a chart showing all the Committees that they attended regularly in Brussels so that I knew of the forthcoming attractions. I was surprised and sometimes shocked at the amount of new ideas and legislation that was coming along, on which I had not received proper briefing. I therefore urge the Parliamentary Secretary and the Leader of the House to find a way of advising the House what is going on so that we may have a much earlier sight of what is happening and can take action.

I strongly support other hon. Members who mentioned greater transparency. The more we know about what is happening, and the earlier we know it, the better. I also endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who wanted greater opportunities to travel to Europe. Some colleagues do not use their one trip a year because one visit is not enough to develop a relationship, specialise in a subject, make appointments to visit officials, and so on. If there were proper opportunities to visit, we would be better informed and scrutiny would be much improved.

We should all do as much as we can to improve newspapers' reporting of European activity. If we are to get the necessary backing from the public, they must be much better informed about European legislation and activity. I endorse and support the House's attempts to improve scrutiny, but it would be better if we could be involved earlier.

6.43 pm

Sir Patrick Cormack

With the leave of the House, I should like to reply.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) talks about the newspapers reporting Europe. Would that they report what goes on in this place more fully. I doubt whether a single word will appear on the non-existent parliamentary pages tomorrow about this short, informative and important debate. I congratulate all those who have taken part in it, including seven Back Benchers. It is good to listen to the wise experience of those who have served for a long time on Committees. We heard from two new Members—the hon. Members for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) and for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale)—who were on the Select Committee and will be translated on to the new Committee, and we heard from the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood).

We should all ponder what they said, just as we should take extremely seriously the points made by my exceptionally experienced colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery). I take his strictures in good part. It is important that we look at new Committees and see exactly how they work. Although we were persuaded by the Government's arguments that, to have three with 13 members had a lot of merit, my right hon. Friend made a good point about having five with 11 members. The hon. Member for Clydesdale echoed that point. When people with so much experience and knowledge of examining European documents and directives say that, we must listen carefully. I hope that the Minister agrees that we must monitor carefully just how the new Committees work.

I do not want to divide the House this evening. I hope that, in the spirit of consensus that has prevailed throughout the debate, we can agree to the new orders and then monitor their operation carefully. It has been instructive to listen to my right hon. Friends the Members for East Devon and for Fylde and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) discuss closer liaison with the European Parliament. As I said in my opening remarks, we must have closer liaison. We should listen to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon in that regard. When the new parliamentary building opens in a couple of years' time, it would be sensible to have one room available for our friends and colleagues from the European Parliament to use as of right on a regular basis to meet Members of this House. I would welcome such an innovation and I hope that it would commend itself to other right hon. and hon. Members.

I promised the Minister that I would not erode the time in which he wishes to respond. With those few words, therefore, I wish the orders good speed.

6.46 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle)

I have listened carefully to the views expressed during the debate and I am pleased that the House has welcomed the package of measures that we are presenting today to improve the process by which we consider European business. May I add my personal commendation to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) who, the whole House agrees, has done a splendid job in chairing the European Legislation Committee? I hope that the Committee will shortly be reborn and he will again take up the challenge of ensuring that legislation that comes before the House is scrutinised even more widely and deeply than hitherto.

I commend the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on the generally supportive stance that he has taken on behalf of the official Opposition, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who has offered, in the nicest possible way, constructive support in the criticisms that he has made of some of the measures before the House this evening.

Ensuring that the House can properly scrutinise European Union business and hold Ministers to account for their actions in the Council of Ministers has universal support throughout the House. The measures proposed today are the culmination of a thorough examination of the scrutiny process undertaken by the European Legislation Committee, the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee, as well as by the Government, and respond to the range of recommendations made by those Committees.

The changes cover matters of principle—for example, they will allow the House fully to scrutinise business under the second and third pillars—and will extend coverage of the scrutiny reserve resolution. In addition, the procedural elements of the current process will be improved, including arrangements for debating European issues and providing a framework for other departmental Select Committees to become more involved in the scrutiny process. The three Committees are to be commended on their work.

The hon. Member for South Staffordshire talked about taking these matters on the Floor of the House. The House will recall that, as well as specific debates on European Union documents, each year the House has two more general debates on developments in the European Union, particularly the business to be taken at European Council meetings. In most instances, a Standing Committee debate is the earliest opportunity and most effective way for hon. Members to question Ministers and debate European Union documents. The Modernisation Committee did not recommend any change in the procedure for debates on the Floor of the House. However, it is our intention, where appropriate, to bring matters on the Floor of the House.

The issue of a national Parliament office was also raised. The House authorities have done considerable preparatory work for today's debate. If the House approves the Modernisation Committee's report, a formal proposal will be made for consideration by the House of Commons Commission at the appropriate time.

A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Staffordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), referred to the EU travel scheme. The current scheme was introduced in 1991 by resolution of the House, and has a set budget of £250,000 per annum. The cost of individual journeys comes from the vote for MPs' paying allowances, so the Leader of the House is responsible for that, not the domestic Committees.

In recent years, some hon. Members have availed themselves of that allowance to visit European institutions, so as better to apprise themselves of the work of those institutions. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has made it abundantly clear that she is prepared to consider how we can deal with those matters with greater flexibility and within budget constraints, so that hon. Members can make such visits on a different basis.

The hon. Member for South Staffordshire asked about the arrangements after devolution. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Leader of House said. We shall ensure that proper arrangements are put in place for the devolved bodies to scrutinise European Union business, and for their views to be taken into account by the Government. The precise arrangements are still being considered, but the devolved bodies themselves will examine how best to carry out their scrutiny function and how their views can be fed into the wider scrutiny process.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)

It would help the scrutiny and information process if the explanatory memorandums attached to each piece of European legislation were published. They set out the arguments for it, including information on ministerial responsibility, policy implications, compliance cost assessments and the process of consultation. They are available on the yellow forms, but if a consolidated weekly edition were laid before the House and made available to the other Assemblies and Parliaments in the United Kingdom and to pressure groups and organisations, that would help us to understand what is going on.

Mr. Kilfoyle

The Government consistently look for ways to reduce the paper chase. We are committed to reducing the amount of paper produced by government. However, we shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall referred to the need to have more debates on the Floor of the House. I am mindful of the difficulties faced by smaller parties in the scrutiny process. One reason for keeping the size of the Standing Committee at 13 is to ensure that the representation of other parties is maintained. The Government have eight members, the official Opposition have three and other parties have two. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) referred to the electronic transmission of EU documents. Only last week, I attended a meeting of Ministers in Vienna, at which the United Kingdom Government were seen as a brand leader in trying to achieve a better system of electronic communication. Work on that specific issue is under way to produce an effective system for the electronic receipt of EU documents in capital cities throughout the European Union. A pilot system is being developed and evaluated. It has been particularly difficult to secure agreement on the systems and the architecture required to introduce such a system across all 15 member states.

We respect the view that the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) has expressed for some years. We must reflect what the Committee has agreed.

The Modernisation Committee did not recommend to the House any such change. As the right hon. Gentleman said, he did not persuade the Conservative Government to change the procedure. It must ultimately be for the Government to decide what is contained in the motion they put to the House.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) rightly drew attention to the importance of departmental Select Committees examining European Union issues. The Government agree with that, and some of the minor Standing Order changes are designed to effect that improved relationship.

I believe that the improvements that the House is asked to support represent a truly comprehensive package that will continue to keep our scrutiny arrangements among the most effective in Europe. That is shown by the consensus that has been reached this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House approves the Seventh Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the Scrutiny of European Business (HC 791) and takes note of the White Paper on the Scrutiny of European Business (Cm. 4095).

Resolved, That the Resolution of the House of 24th October 1990 relating to European Community Legislation be rescinded and the following Resolution be made: That,

(1) No Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council or in the European Council to any proposal for European Community legislation or for a common position or joint action under Title V or a joint position, joint action or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union—

1. (a) which is still subject to scrutiny (that is, on which the European Scrutiny Committee has not completed its scrutiny) or
2. (b) which is awaiting consideration by the House (that is, which has been recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee for consideration pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) but in respect of which the House has not come to a Resolution).

(2) In this Resolution, any reference to agreement to a proposal includes—

1. (a) agreement to a programme, plan or recommendation for European Community legislation;
2. (b) political agreement;
3. (c) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b of the Treaty of Rome (co-decision), agreement to a common position, to a joint text, and to confirmation of the common position (with or without amendments proposed by the European Parliament); and
4. (d) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189c of the Treaty of Rome (co-operation), agreement to a common position.

(3) The Minister concerned may, however, give agreement—

1. (a) to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny if he considers that it is confidential, routine or trivial or is substantially the same as a proposal on which scrutiny has been completed;
2. (b) to a proposal which is awaiting consideration by the House if the European Scrutiny Committee has indicated 804 that agreement need not be withheld pending consideration.

(4) The Minister concerned may also give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or awaiting consideration by the House if he decides that for special reasons agreement should be given; but he should explain his reasons—

1. (a) in every such case, to the European Scrutiny Committee at the first opportunity after reaching his decision; and
2. (b) in the case of a proposal awaiting consideration by the House, to the House at the first opportunity after giving agreement.

(5) In relation to any proposal which requires adoption by unanimity, abstention shall, for the purposes of paragraph (4), be treated as giving agreement.

Resolved, That, upon the entering into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Resolution on Scrutiny of European Business (No. 2) shall have effect with the following modifications: In paragraph (1) the words "a common position or joint action under Title V or a joint position, joint action or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union" are replaced by the words "a common strategy, joint action or common position under Title V or a common position, framework decision, decision or convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union"; and in paragraph (2)(c) the words "a common position, to a joint text, and to confirmation of the common position (with or without amendments proposed by the European Parliament)" are replaced by the words "a common position, to an act in the form of a common position incorporating amendments proposed by the European Parliament, and to a joint text".

Ordered, That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session, Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees) be replaced by the following Standing Order (European Standing Committees):

".—(1) There shall be three standing committees, called European Standing Committees, to which shall stand referred for consideration on motion, unless the House otherwise orders, such European Union documents as defined in Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee) as may be recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee for further consideration.

(2) If a motion that specified European Union documents as aforesaid shall not stand referred to a European Standing Committee is made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public business, the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

(3) Each European Standing Committee shall consist of thirteen Members nominated for the duration of a Parliament by the Committee of Selection; and in nominating such Members, the Committee of Selection shall—

1. (a) have regard to the qualifications of the Members nominated and to the composition of the House; and
2. (b) have power to discharge Members from time to time, and to appoint others in substitution.

(4) The quorum of a European Standing Committee shall be three, excluding the chairman.

(5) Any Member, though not nominated to a European Standing Committee, may take part in the committee's proceedings and may move amendments to any motion made as provided in paragraphs (7) and (8) below, but such Member shall not make any motion, vote or be counted in the quorum; provided that a Minister of the Crown who is a Member of this House but not nominated to the committee may make a motion as provided in paragraphs (7) and (8) below; and the Government may appoint the precedence of notices of motion to be considered in each committee.

(6) The European Standing Committees, and the principal subject matter of the European Union documents to be referred to each, shall be as set out below; and in making recommendations for further consideration, the European Scrutiny Committee shall specify the committee to which in its opinion the documents ought to be referred; and subject to paragraph (2) of this order, the documents shall be referred to that committee accordingly

European Standing Committees	Principal subject matter
	Matters within the responsibility of the following Departments:
A	Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Environment, Transport and the Regions; Forestry Commission; (and analogous responsibilities of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices)
B	HM Treasury (including HM Customs and Excise); Social Security; Foreign and Commonwealth Office; International Development; Home Office; Lord Chancellor's Department; together with any matters not otherwise allocated by this Order
C	Trade and Industry; Employment and Education; Culture, Media and Sport; Health

(7) The chairman may permit Ministers of the Crown to make statements and to answer questions thereon put by Members, in respect of each motion relative to a European Union document or documents referred to a European Standing Committee of which a Minister shall have given notice; but no question shall be taken after the expiry of a period of one hour from the commencement of the first such statement: Provided that the chairman may, if he sees fit, allow questions to be taken for a further period of not more than half an hour after the expiry of that period.

(8) Following the conclusion of the proceedings under the previous paragraph, the motion referred to therein may be made, to which amendments may be moved; and, if proceedings thereon have not been previously concluded, the chairman shall interrupt the consideration of such motion and amendments when the committee shall have sat for a period of two and a half hours, and shall then put forthwith successively:

1. (a) the question on any amendment already proposed from the chair; and
2. (b) the main question (or the main question, as amended).

The chairman shall thereupon report to the House any resolution to which the committee has come, or that it has come to no resolution, without any further question being put.

(9) If any motion is made in the House in relation to any European Union document in respect of which a report has been made to the House in accordance with paragraph (8) of this order, the Speaker shall forthwith put successively—

1. (a) the question on any amendment selected by her which may be moved;
2. (b) the main question (or the main question, as amended);

and proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

(10) With the modifications provided in this order, the following Standing Orders shall apply to European Standing Committees:

• No. 85 (Chairmen of standing committees);
• No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees); and
• No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees)."

Ordered,

That Standing Order No. 143 (Select Committee on European Legislation) be replaced by the following Standing Order (European Scrutiny Committee):

(1) There shall be a select committee, to be called the European Scrutiny Committee, to examine European Union documents and—

1. (a) to report its opinion on the legal and political importance of each such document and, where it considers appropriate, to report also on the reasons for its opinion and on any matters of principle, policy or law which may be affected;
806
2. (b) to make recommendations for the further consideration of any such document pursuant to Standing Order No. 119 (European Standing Committees); and
3. (c) to consider any issue arising upon any such document or group of documents, or related matters.

The expression 'European Union document' in this order and in Standing Orders No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), No. 89 (Procedure in standing committees) and No. 119 (European Standing Committees) means—

1. (i) any proposal under the Community Treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with the European Parliament;
2. (ii) any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European Central Bank;
3. (iii) any proposal to define a common position or for joint action under Title V of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;
4. (iv) any proposal for a joint position, joint action or a convention under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;
5. (v) any document (not falling within (ii), (iii) or (iv) above) which is published by one Union institution for or with a view to submission to another Union institution and which does not relate exclusively to consideration of any proposal for legislation;
6. (vi) any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.

(2) The committee shall consist of sixteen Members.

(3) The committee and any sub-committee appointed by it shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker.

(4) The committee shall have power to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

(5) The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time.

(6) The quorum of the committee shall be five.

(7) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee.

(8) Every such sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the committee from time to time.

(9) The committee shall have power to report from time to time the minutes of evidence taken before such sub-committees.

(10) The quorum of every such sub-committee shall be two.

(11) The committee shall have power to seek from any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order its opinion on any European Union document, and to require a reply to such a request within such time as it may specify.

(12) The committee or any sub-committee appointed by it shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order or with any committee of the Lords on the European Communities, or any sub-committee of that committee, for the purposes of deliberating or examining witnesses.

(13) The committee shall have power to communicate to any committee specified in paragraph (14) of this order its evidence or any other document relating to matters of common interest.

(14) The committees specified for the purposes of this order are those appointed under Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) including any sub-committees of such committees, the Select Committee on Public Administration, the Committee of Public Accounts, and the Environmental Audit Committee.

(15) Unless the House otherwise orders, each member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a Member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

Ordered,

That the following consequential Amendments to Standing Orders be made:

In Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents), line 3, leave out "Community documents" and insert "Union documents (as defined in Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee))".

In Standing Order No. 89 (Procedure in Standing Committees), line 18, leave out "Community" and insert "Union".

In Standing Order No. 146 (Select Committee on Public Administration), line 20, at the end insert:

"(c) to communicate to the European Scrutiny Committee its evidence and any other document relating to matters of common interest; and (d) to meet concurrently with the European Scrutiny Committee, or any sub-committee thereof, for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence."; In Standing Order No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts),

line 17, after "departments)" insert "and to the European Scrutiny Committee",

line 21, at end add: (4) The committee shall have power to meet concurrently with the European Scrutiny Committee, or any sub-committee thereof, for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence.

In Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments)

line 31, after "and" insert "to the European Scrutiny Committee,"

line 39, at end insert "or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof for the purposes of deliberating or taking evidence;"

line 46, after "thereof" insert ", or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof,"

In Standing Order No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee), in line 30, after "thereof' insert ", or with the European Scrutiny Committee or any sub-committee thereof,".

Ordered,

That, with effect from the coming into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, Standing Order No. 143 (European Scrutiny Committee) shall have effect with the following Amendments:

line 21, leave out "to define a common position or for joint action" and insert "for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position";

line 23, after "Council" insert "or to the European Council"; and line 24, leave out "joint position, joint action" and insert "common position, framework decision, decision".

Ordered,

That Mr. Ben Bradshaw, Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. Roger Casale, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Jimmy Hood, Ms Jennifer Jones, Mrs. Rosemary McKenna, Mr. Jim Marshall, Mr. Bill Rammell, Mr. Anthony Steen and Mr. Shaun Woodward be members of the European Scrutiny Committee.—[Mr. Allen.]