HL Deb 19 May 1992 vol 537 cc547-8

2.58 p.m.

Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:

In respect of the meetings of the European Community's Council of Ministers held in the year 1991, how many legislative instruments were signed without debate or discussion in Council prior to their issue to individual member states, and how many were issued after discussion and debate.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, approximately 300 items of legislation were adopted by the Council in 1991. Some of those items, mostly of a routine nature, were formally adopted without debate by Ministers in the Council, but only following detailed discussion at official level. Even in such circumstances discussion in the Council is not ruled out should any member state wish to initiate it. The precise figures requested by the noble Lord are not available.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. However, is it not the case that literally hundreds of legislative instruments of varying importance are being discussed in private by the Commission and the Committee of Permanent Representatives behind closed doors? The legislation is then commended by them to the Council of Ministers as something with which it need not concern itself. Is it not a dangerous tendency that civil servants —not accountable to the public in any way —should, without any democratic control, be able to initiate and push through such legislation as they think necessary?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, underestimates the amount of attention that Her Majesty's Ministers pay to these items. It is true that the Committee of Permanent Representatives look at some of the detail. Indeed some of it is written in such arcane language that without its help a normal mortal would never understand it. Nevertheless, the committee having done the ground work, we then seek—as is normal in government in this country—to make sure that we are vigilant and that we take up the various issues. We do not give permission to the Committee of Permanent Representatives to proceed unless we are satisfied with the result. That will continue. We do not adopt measures until we agree with them.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, does that mean that Her Majesty's Government are happy with the situation in which legislation which is binding on this country is discussed only by civil servants?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter puts an important point. The difficulty about the volume is that if every issue were discussed in the greatest detail by Ministers when the instructions first given to the permanent representatives were in fact agreed we would waste a great deal of time. However, where there is any contention I can assure my noble friend that we look at it in great detail. Indeed our scrutiny is better than that of many other countries. That is why other member states are seeking to model their scrutiny system on ours. It is in that sense that I believe that your Lordships can be satisfied that a great deal of attention not only has been paid in the past, but will continue to be paid, to the detail of the legislative proposals which come before the Council of Ministers.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, will the noble Baroness say to which Cabinet committee or sub-committee these regulations go prior to approval? In view of her earlier answer to my Question does she agree that it would be much better if we cut this wretched legislation down to manageable quantities and concentrated on what was important?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I agree about cutting down the amount of paperwork involved. But there are some necessary things for the good and the benefit of the people of this country with which we must comply. We must do our job thoroughly. I am sure that your Lordships' House would not agree that we should defer matters which were beneficial. We hope that what is necessary for the benefit of this nation will also be for the benefit of others. We shall make sure that we continue the parliamentary scrutiny. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, to await the announcement from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about committees. However, I can assure the noble Lord that there will be no failure to scrutinise.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, it is a little difficult to understand why the figures asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, are not available. I entirely agree with my noble friend that we have to do our job properly. Can my noble friend tell me whether it is the case that the number of provisions which are passed without debate is not capable of being counted?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Central records are kept of Commission proposals and of votes in Council. However, from time to time there are a number of votes on a single issue. That will result in a single decision which takes the form of a regulation or directive. We would have to examine the detailed records of the progress of every legislative proposal through the Community machinery throughout 1991. I regret to tell your Lordships' House that that can only be done at disproportionate cost. I am not sure that it would be to a beneficial end to count numbers. It is far better to concentrate on detail, and that is what we are doing.