HL Deb 12 January 1999 vol 596 cc112-36

4.56 p.m.

Debate resumed.

Lord Howell of Guildford

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the distinguished former European Commissioner, I was not a member of the committee which produced the report we are debating. I therefore have no hesitation in giving unqualified praise to my noble friend Lord Kingsland and his colleagues for their work and for tackling this subject with such constructive focus.

I believe that we should banish all illusions that this is a rather obscure and dry matter. It is of massive importance to the way in which our democracy shapes and the way in which we tackle the trends towards globalisation and internationalism which tend to dominate more and more aspects of everybody's lives at all levels.

There are two groups of reasons why we should pay close attention to the report, its recommendations and what we can do to reinforce them. The first is the obvious point which the report makes; that is, that the Government recognise that accountability and responsibility for actions taken under the Second and Third Pillar regime—security and foreign affairs and justice and home affairs—rests in the national parliaments. Paragraph 5 of the report makes clear that the European Parliament has a very limited say, not really amounting to accountability and influence over policy, in the way we believe that it should work. That is no fault of the European Parliament. They were given only very small additional powers under the Amsterdam Treaty. However, this is not a matter where the European Parliament can play much of a role.

When we come to the various different aspects of the new international role developing we shall find that the European Parliament's role in other areas is extremely limited. I do not share the over-optimistic view of some enthusiasts who propound "the third way" and so forth, and that the European Parliament is somehow a model for the future, neither a world government on the one hand nor a national government on the other. I believe that is completely wrong and that the pattern will not be so linear. The pattern of accountability in our democracies will develop in rather different ways. That is a matter to which we must pay acute attention because accountability rests here in the Houses of Parliament, and we must make it work.

The second reason why I believe this is so important is that it is not just a transitional phase. There are some who believe that the Second and Third Pillar are just temporary waiting rooms before the whole area of activities covered, particularly in the Third Pillar, collapses into the community proper and the whole thing becomes "communitised".

The view that this is just part of the road towards communitisation held back by one or two sensitive souls who do not want to go the whole way to supra-nationalism is very strong indeed. One hears that view put forward in a number of quarters. Indeed, it could be argued that some issues have already been transferred, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, reminded us, from the Third Pillar into the full community system, and even one or two issues from the Second Pillar. Some quite considerable and sensitive issues, including those of visas and refugees, have gone into the community system.

It could therefore be reasoned that this is all part of a pattern and that we need not waste too much time on accountability over the matters that remain in the Third Pillar—it is all hurrying along the railway tracks to something different. But that again is a completely wrong understanding of present and future trends. It is a linear projection which once again will not be sustained by events.

I suspect that the future will not be a more supranational or communitised pattern in dealing with these sensitive affairs. They go to the heart of national democratic legitimacy and the world—particularly democracies—will seek ways of reconciling the desire for retained national accountability and keeping the thread of control all the way from the voter up through the national institutions to these activities. They will be reluctant to surrender them to some higher authority governed by some higher model like the European Parliament. The pattern will be much more in the direction of what some American commentators are now calling "transgovernmentalism"—that is a little more than intergovernmentalism; it is a whole arrangement of networks between states dealing with a vast variety of sensitive issues while retaining the elements of national accountability. This is part of that scene. This is not just intergovernmentalism; it is transgovernmentalism and we must make it work. If your Lordships' House is to be reformed, as we are told daily that it is, then it may be that in that new pattern of reform your Lordships' House will play an even more decisive and effective part than it does already. It will presumably be more assertive—for various reasons—than it is already and therefore there may be opportunities for building a still more effective system of calling to account transgovernmental activities.

In another place I had the privilege of working on the committee which gave a great deal of thought over several years to the questions of scrutiny generally, calling to account the activities of the Council of Ministers and, after Maastricht, scrutiny over and the parliamentary input into the policies and proposals which circulated in the Second and Third Pillar areas. It was not a scrutiny committee; it was a foreign affairs committee of the other place. Nevertheless, the matter worried us a good deal and we gave it a great deal of thought.

To give a shorthand conclusion, on which I shall expand in a moment, scrutiny is not enough. The concepts of scrutiny exercised properly and effectively by other committees of both Houses were, and are, not enough to exercise accountability over this area, which is growing, of transgovernmental activity. We felt that it would indeed grow. We believed strongly that it is a vastly expanding area, particularly when we deal with the justice element—the juridical affairs. In that regard we are surveying a world in which the old, clearly defined boundaries of what was a juridical concern in which a national government could exercise some kind of direct accountability and control are being blurred. The simplicities of a world of nation states and activities confined within the territorial limits of those states have gone.

It is not simply a question of facing the fact that there will be constant pressures from centralising forces in other parts of Europe—in Brussels and in other parts of the Commission, despite subsidiarity—and reasonable and rational arguments put forward, which will be hard to refute, for more centralisation, maybe communitisation, of these affairs; it is also that the whole concept of juridical space is changing and being eroded. That makes it more difficult to devise the right and effective means of calling to account what is going on in those areas.

One may ask what sort of things I am talking about. But one only has to think about the globalisation of capital markets and the moves of vast blocks of capital around the world at record speed being involved in all sorts of new problems of regulation far outside the European framework to see that the enforcement of regulation and the whole assessment, control and proper enforcement of laws and rules governing it will require something that goes beyond the traditional nation state limits.

The same applies to information. But one has only to think for a moment of the Internet and the growing difficulty of various national administrations to control movement—whether of trade or of information, some of it poisonous—across the Internet. There is also the sensitive area of immigration where at this moment many people within the European Union take the view that enormous difficulties are arising because the laws of the Italian states on immigration are calling the shots on the entire movement of immigrants inside the whole European Community. The question is, if legislators in different countries want to exert some kind of control over their immigration laws, how do they get a grip on Italian immigration laws which are the ones which decide who gets into their countries?

It is therefore an area which is becoming much more complicated and difficult to police and control. The report comes to grips with some, if not all, of the needs for moving forward extremely effectively. First, as my noble friend Lord Kingsland said, it is a question of the right documents and the right time; early depositing of the right documents. I agree with the implication of the report. In his evidence Professor Birkinshaw supported the fact that it is not just a question of looking at documents which may turn into primary legislation or even looking at documents which may turn into secondary legislation; it is also a question of having an oversight of the continuing stream of papers, memoranda, even ideas and perhaps thinking aloud by national government departments—I will come to a broader dimension in a moment—which may be about to operate in this area with results which will emerge in the Council of Ministers and be turned into policies and measures of various kinds.

So, early deposit of the right documents is also a conclusion to which we came in another place. Secondly, we need an early "inkling"—to use a non-technical word—of what the Government are thinking; in other words, moving upstream from the point where documents start appearing; having a committee which can converse with Ministers and the authorities about ideas that may take shape and move suddenly from being mere ideas into being legislative instruments.

Thirdly—the report rightly refers to this—there is a need again to have an inkling of what other governments are thinking. As the report rightly indicates, this nation may find itself involved rather suddenly in a whole process of law-making and regulation-making, the provenance of which lies in the ideas of other governments way back. Schengen may be a good example of that, though there may be many others as well.

Fourthly—recommendation 22 of this excellent report—it will need legislatures; that is, first and second chambers of the member state countries of the European Union (I repeat, this is not just a European Union question) and other countries to co-operate closely with each other in relation to their experiences and to learn what is coming before their own governments. This may tell them what is on the table. To some extent that is going on. Judges co-operate; courts exchange experience on various judgments on an international level right outside the normal official purview. That is transgovernmentalism; it is a pattern of co-operation between states which does not involve the official government. That is already taking place and is creating an international pattern in these areas.

I close on the fact that the fashionable view exists that nation states are fading away. That is totally erroneous. They are forming new roles. The state is changing its shape rapidly. But when it comes to global problems, it is the state that will be harnessed to their solution rather than any fancy new world level or supranational level organisations.

It is not just the state but also the non-executive parts of the state (of which the legislatures are a good example). We have a role to play in this new interface. There are also—and this has been mentioned by other noble Lords—the non-governmental agencies which are co-operating with each other with increasing intensity and creating a network world as against the old pattern of hierarchies of governments and officialdom. If one wants examples, the world's regulation of banking has been influenced most in the last two years by the Basle Committee, which is a group of voluntary nationals and senior bankers, rather than by the international monetary institutions.

As I have said, it is judicial co-operation between national judiciaries rather than a world court or even (dare I say it?) the European Court of Justice, which is setting the pace in shaping an international pattern of jurisdiction to oversee an increasingly internationalised world.

I believe that the new global order will be held to account not by the supernational parliaments or international courts, but by national legislatures, and that is rightly so because that, and nothing more than that, is what democrats and citizens will tolerate. We have to find the best way of doing this and this report makes a massive and practical contribution to that goal. It does not achieve everything but it takes us a long way forward and I repeat my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Kingsland and his colleagues.

5.11 p.m.

Baroness Ludford

My Lords, I share the congratulations due to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and his committee. I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, whose remarks I found most interesting and I agreed with almost all of what he said. There is a huge contrast between what is for the most part the necessarily somewhat dry procedural focus of this debate and the huge significance of the subject matter because this topic takes us to the heart of the construction of the citizens' Europe, a term I always prefer to "people's Europe", not only in the content (which affects citizens' security and civil liberties) but also in the way that law is made, the degree of accountability, and the right of citizens to participate either directly or through their parliament in making the laws which will apply to them.

I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about the respective roles of national governments and parliaments and the European Parliament. I take the view (not that I necessarily have any bias between the European level and intergovernmentalism) that the intergovernmental method always throws up flaws in accountability. It is much more difficult for 15 national parliaments to keep track of a European executive, but the key is to have a partnership between the national parliaments and the European Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is right: not everything will be gobbled up at Community level. Those areas which remain areas of national co-operation must go on increasing the techniques and the depth of bringing governments to account.

As a non-member of the European Select Committee, I very much echo the tribute that Justice paid to the fact that the House of Lords European Select Committee reports are widely respected for their expert attention to legal and procedural implications of Third Pillar proposals. I do not like this House being too incestuous but, as I am not a member of the committee and I am quoting an outside organisation, I think I can draw attention to that.

I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the need to retain such expertise in a reformed second Chamber. Scrutiny of European legislation is very much a function that must be retained and, as I have said before in this House, I know from my time in the European Commission that House of Lords Select Committee reports do carry great weight.

Lord Kingsland drew attention to the fact that the committee was making its report at the time that the Amsterdam Treaty was being finalised and the committee took account of that to some extent. Incidentally, I am not entirely sure why it has taken 18 months to arrange this debate. Perhaps I should have asked that before the debate started, but it is a pity that such a long time has elapsed.

The Amsterdam Treaty changes were considerable in relation to the Third Pillar, partly taking matters out of the Third Pillar and into Community competence in the area of freedom, security and justice. I regret that the UK opted out. I hope that in time our Government will see the advantages of some inclusion. The Amsterdam Treaty strengthened the general principles and objectives of the treaty on European Union in regard to citizens' rights, fundamental human rights, measures against discrimination, and on openness and transparency. They gave a role to the European Court of Justice in relation to the Third Pillar, although regrettably not for citizens to have a direct right of access to the European Court of Justice, and the formal right of the European Parliament to be consulted on Third Pillar matters as well as the protocol on the role of national parliaments. All this was a considerable advance in the Amsterdam Treaty and we look forward to the treaty coming into force.

In relation to openness I did note the remark by Adrian Fortescue of the Commission that in the future, as more legislation is likely to be initiated by the Commission rather than by member states or by the Council and, as the Commission's instincts were more for openness and transparency than were those of the Council, it was more likely that documents would be put in the public domain. I thought that introduced a nice note of competition perhaps in the light of events of this week where the Commission's record on openness and transparency was put under scrutiny by the European Parliament.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, I trust that the noble Baroness will forgive my interruption. I have to say that, although the Commission comes in for a lot of stick, from my experience it has in the past been much more open and transparent in dealing with First Pillar matters than the Council has been until recent years. That is improving, as this report indicates, and as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested, but I think it is not unfair to say that the Commission has been rather better in terms of transparency than the Council.

Baroness Ludford

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for that intervention. As a former official of the European Commission I did not like to be seen congratulating the commission, but I think it is true that, because the Commission is often overstretched, as has been focused on this afternoon, it needs external input and information and so it is rather keen to let people have information documents so that they can get comments and assistance.

The report we are looking at this afternoon brings up two interrelated issues. One is parliamentary scrutiny and the other is secrecy. What the report emphasises is that early and thorough parliamentary scrutiny should be regarded by government as a benefit, not a burden. It is likely to lead to better legislation, and will probably save time, energy and possibly expense later on. I understand from the remarks made by noble Lords that the current Home Secretary and his staff at the Home Office may by now share this view rather more than they did in the past, and that is all to the good. Certainly the report on the Schengen acquis that we debated in November contained correspondence on differences of opinion as recently as last February, if my memory is correct, over whether the Home Office had interpreted correctly the criteria on making documents available.

Today's report shows a gap in the past between promises and practice which needs to be rectified; for example, adding a new unilateral criterion from the Home Office side such as whether the text had to be reasonably close to the final version. We look forward to that reticence being removed. The introduction that we look forward to in the Amsterdam Treaty of a formal scrutiny reserve and a minimum six week period for scrutiny is welcome, though I must confess that I am unclear whether this applies to member states' proposals as well as to those from the Commission and whether it applies to all third party matters. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten me either today or at a later date.

I turn now to secrecy. It is vital that any definition of "confidentiality" should be interpreted narrowly. I welcome new Article 191 A in the Amsterdam Treaty (I believe it is now 255) which confers on citizens a right of access to European Parliament, European Commission and European Council documents. Rules and limits on this right of access are to be drawn up by the Council and the European Parliament under the co-decision procedure. I hope that those limits will be narrowly drawn to meet real operational and security requirements. The public interest should generally be defined as openness and not as secrecy. To me, that is the definition of the public interest.

I am wary of the declaration accompanying Article 191A that allows one member state to block the communication of a document in the possession of the Council or the Commission if the document originated from that member state. Perhaps the Minister could also indicate how that is likely to work and tell the House whether there will be any limits on that right of veto. But those rights of access lie in the future. At present, we have a wholly unsatisfactory situation where there are tiers of inclusion with the public at the bottom. At the top are governments and their civil servants, some European Union civil servants, followed by national parliaments and the European Parliament, pressure groups and then the public.

According to Justice, the Home Office never distributed Third Pillar texts or explanatory notes and claims to be constrained by the 1993 Council decision. It was left to your Lordships' committee to decide whether to let the advisory groups have the document in question. It surely cannot be right to put the onus unfairly on Parliament to be a gatekeeper. It seems to me that it draws Parliament into a web of "clubiness" and—dare I use this term?—cronyism which I find rather distasteful. It makes third party access a lottery. A pressure group or a member of the public has to know if the document exists, and then hope that the committee is carrying out an inquiry on it, before access to the document can be gained. I do not see how that can be acceptable. Therefore, I hope that the rules drawn up in future by the Council and the European Parliament will end that culture of secrecy and put access to documents on a true basis of citizenship rights in the spirit of a European freedom of information charter.

I have one further comment and question about the publication of Third Pillar initiatives in the Official Journal. The Amsterdam Treaty says that this will happen, but I am rather unclear as to how it relates to the protocol on national parliaments, where, as I said, it refers only to Commission proposals being sent out to national parliaments. In other words, will there be publication of all Third Pillar proposals, whether they come from the Commission, the Council or member states, bearing in mind the fact that national parliaments only get sent those from the Commission? That would mean that the public would get more than the national parliaments.

In this transitional phase, between where we are now and the Amsterdam Treaty, it seems to me that there is another complicating factor; namely, that last March, under the UK presidency, Justice and the Home Affairs Council declared themselves in favour of making available to the public proposals in the field of justice and home affairs at the same time as these were made available to the European Parliament. There was no mention of national parliaments in those presidency conclusions. I wonder whether national parliaments at present in this transitional phase will also get those proposals.

I turn now to my conclusions. It is possible that I am confusing your Lordships as much as I am confusing myself, but I believe that we have a number of anomalies which need to be ironed out. It is one of my conclusions that we need strong co-operation between national parliaments and the European Parliament so that whatever rights apply are aligned. There is one further anomaly that I have noticed; namely, that national parliaments will be consulted on common positions under the Third Pillar where the European Parliament is not. That means that there is a whole network of people with different information.

I began by saying that I was concerned about the rights of all citizens, but I also mean all residents. I say that because we have non-citizen residents in this country—third country nationals—as in other member states. In terms of black and Asian ethnic minority citizens, we have anecdotal evidence at least (which was highlighted in the evidence to the report on the Schengen acquis) of discriminatory behaviour experienced by ethnic minority Britons travelling in the European Union. There are also the rights of third country nationals with rights of residence in this country but who are not citizens of the European Union, which by analogy are less.

I hope that the provision in the Amsterdam Treaty about combating discrimination on the grounds of race will be exploited by the Council in order to increase the security of black and Asian citizens and third country nationals who are ethnic minorities so that we end the situation of two or three classes of people in the European Union.

I conclude by saying that, for the third time in a debate on European matters, I am to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. On the two previous occasions I believe that the noble Lord expressed himself in considerable disagreement with what I had said. However, perhaps this will be third time lucky.

5.25 p.m.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, I shall not disappoint the noble Baroness. It is not so much a matter of disagreement; indeed, it is the fact that she starts from a quite different position from mine. My sole interest in these matters is how Britain is governed and how its citizens benefit from the form of government that they enjoy. The noble Baroness's interest is based on the assumption that there are persons called "Europeans" who live at the grass roots and are creating a new world. I cannot go into that because, as I said, it is very remote from my own interests.

I read the report now before the House with great interest. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Kingsland and his colleagues on making clear, with some difficulty to a limited mind, what the problems are in relation to this particular question of Parliament and the so-called Third Pillar. It is perhaps typical of your Lordships' House that this report has had to wait for a year or more to be considered and that a good deal has happened in the interim; and, indeed, may happen quite shortly if and when the Amsterdam Treaty comes into force. I must say that it is a little blurred. I believe that a general member of the public might find even the notion of three pillars a little difficult to assimilate.

I have always thought—and think so now more than ever—that it was a great and obvious mistake of this country to agree to any pillar, any set of measures, relating to justice and the law. We have in this country, along only with the Republic of Ireland, a system of common law that we share with the United States and certain countries in the Commonwealth based on an entirely different set of principles from those governing the majority of Continental European legal systems which are in their origin at least Napoleonic, if not earlier. I cannot see how they can be married effectively and see no reason why they should be. Why should there be an approximation of laws and procedures in courts which is not found necessary for the transaction of normal human relations with other countries not in the European Union, though many of them are, of course, in Europe geographically speaking? Therefore, it is extremely difficult to visualise what advantage the citizens of this country can gain from that particular approach.

The most interesting and novel part of the report was the description as to how the conventions, or agreements, which are to eventuate in some form of primary or secondary legislation are arrived at. On reading the description of the five levels at which matters are considered, it seemed to me a matter that is difficult to assimilate for those who are brought up in the British tradition of government, where there may be consultations, a White Paper and a legal text. One knows who is responsible for it. One can ask questions and argue in this House and another place about its validity, and it is a matter that the public can understand. But when one reads that texts are produced only at a late stage, following an agreement on principle without a text, one begins to think—if I may refer to the interruption to our debate—that there is a culture in Brussels more peculiar than the culture that apparently exists in the secure accommodation unit at Ashworth Hospital. There are ways of doing things that suit some people and may not suit others.

I wish to put an important point to the Minister. It must have cost a great deal of Civil Service time—particularly that of members of his own department, but also in the other departments involved—to engage in these discussions. If those energies had been available to the Minister's department for dealing with internal problems, which he has admitted exist in relation to, for example, asylum seeking or immigration, would not the department have been in a much better position? In other words, should not the manpower costs figure in our consideration of European affairs as much as the financial costs, which look like being brought rudely to our attention by the German Government during their presidency?

It is therefore difficult to see that much can be done by Parliament in these circumstances. It is difficult to see how the greater, or earlier, circulation of documents on which the report lays great emphasis will have an input into a system of this kind. If the Government are prepared before embarking on any of these endeavours to seek advice from Members of this House or another place, through the European Committee, for instance, it is always open to them to do so. However, we should be asking a lot of our colleagues on the European Committees—it is many years since I have served on one; the Whips have seen to that—to take responsibility for, as it were, prodding the Government from time to time.

It looks as though by far the most important part of a common policy is that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, with whose remarks I find myself almost wholly in agreement. I refer to the problem of the movement of people, whether seeking refuge for asylum or as part of what looks like becoming increasingly a movement of peoples motivated by the perfectly legitimate wish to better their economic position. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that under the Amsterdam Treaty that matter will now be dealt with at Community level. We come to the very familiar problems of how one handles Community legislation and how the opinions of Parliament are made manifest towards it.

So we are in a situation in which one could easily take the points made by the witnesses to the committee and others and say: yes, of course it would be nice if one had the documents in time, and to have an opportunity to think about them. However, I suspect that that is secondary to the real question of how we are to tackle the serious problems that are before us.

It was conceivable that the answer would not lie with national parliaments but with a European parliament of some kind. It seems cruel to talk about the European Parliament this week, when it is once again in the process of showing itself up as a toothless dragon. If we still had, as was the case, a European Parliament representative of the national parliaments, not of an apathetic and uninterested electorate, perhaps there would have been some scope for advance along those lines. We do not have that, and we are unlikely to return to it. All one can say is that when one looks at Europe, defined as the Union, and when one thinks of the opportunities that it has thrown away—particularly in regard to embracing, as looks increasingly improbable, other countries in Europe outside the original core—one can only be sad. And sadness is what comes to my mind whenever I think about the European Union.

5.37 p.m.

Lord Inglewood

My Lords, I begin by reiterating what a number of other speakers have said regarding the importance of the topic covered by the report. I am a member of Sub-Committee F, but joined the committee only after my noble friend relinquished his position there, although I served under his leadership in the Conservative Group in the European Parliament. It is a position to which I hope to return. (I daresay that will horrify my noble friend Lord Beloff.) The "apathetic electorate" have no part in having placed me here and are about to turf me out, so they may feel inclined to the idea that I may contribute something there.

The report approached the subjects under consideration, dealt with under the aegis of the European Union and the Third Pillar, in terms of a series of specific issues. I wish to stand back and view the scrutiny process as a whole in the wider political context of the European Union system of international relations here in Western Europe, and in a manner somewhat similar to that adopted by my noble friend Lord Howell.

For reasons that were not planned, a great deal of my political life has involved the consideration of matters relating to the Community and subsequently the European Union, and from a number of different perspectives. Over that time, I have become convinced of a number of relatively simple points. The first is that science and technology, telecommunications and improved transport mean that, increasingly, countries will have to work together over a wide range of topics. We live in a world where at present there is effectively a seamless transition in a number of areas between what traditionally might have been called domestic political matters and, in contrast, what were traditionally known as foreign affairs. In practice, the traditional demarcation between them—indeed, the distinction between them—has more or less ceased to exist. I believe that the vast majority of our citizens accept this and recognise that we have to work together to provide a coherent legal framework across more than one national jurisdiction. As part of this, I believe it is recognised that a satisfactory process for taking political decisions is needed. This, in turn, inevitably involves sensible give and take. What is equally clear is that a large number of people are, to a greater or lesser extent, unhappy about the systems which are in place for doing this. I suspect that the single greatest reason for this unfortunate state of affairs is that it is widely felt that there is inadequate democratic control and scrutiny of what is going on and that it is not backed up by consistent and even-handed enforcement in the areas where these joint decisions are taken.

The European Union system clearly involves two different but parallel ways of doing business. First, the old Community system has developed, involving significant Commission and European parliamentary involvement. More recently we have seen the development of an intergovernmental system which, after Amsterdam, will have some European parliamentary involvement and which in practice does have some peripheral Commission involvement.

It is important that we distinguish this way of doing business from traditional, classical diplomatic intergovernmentalism, from which it is obviously derived and with which it shares certain characteristics. I believe that this is a new development and should be seen as such. It is distinct from the way in which sovereign states did business together traditionally.

In the case of the Community system, even after the Amsterdam provisions come on to the statute book, and certainly in the case of European Union intergovernmentalism, the member state governments are, in my view, the single most important element in the decision-making process. As has been pointed out by my noble friends Lord Kingsland and Lord Howell, it follows that the greatest instruments of scrutiny and accountability are the national parliaments.

If one looks at the theoretical basis of the way decisions are taken in the European Union, there is clearly a strong linkage between the Council of Ministers and their equivalents in the Second and Third Pillars, and national parliaments. One of the big difficulties, however, is the perception that there is a lack of success on their parts in achieving adequately comprehensive scrutiny and accountability. This in turn is at the root of much of the major concern which there is in this country and in other countries in the Union regarding the way in which the European Union system operates. Whether or not one is a supporter of a particular way of doing business, it is nonetheless damaging for democracy in general and for individual countries if there is an erosion of confidence in the way in which government is carried on.

In this country the natural focus for political debate is set in Parliament here in Westminster and, in particular, in the Chamber of the other place. If one looks at the way in which European matters are debated in Parliament, traditionally there is relatively regular debate regarding high profile political events and issues as they occur. I think, for example, of debates about the conclusions of a European Council. I am of the view, however, that, because the "devil lies in the detail", it is not these to which much of the public's concern is addressed. For example, if the European Union decides that it should have an asylum policy between its member states, that is clearly a matter of constitutional significance. As far as many citizens of these countries are concerned, however, at that point it is essentially an abstraction. What matters is the detail of the policy itself and the way it affects real people in a tangible way.

If I might be allowed to use United Kingdom parliamentary terms, I believe we are perceived as having plenty of second reading debates but hardly any committee and report stages. Indeed I noticed, as my noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, noticed, that the report we are discussing this afternoon was ordered to be printed on 31st July 1997. That is a date in the calendar which is etched in my mind because it is my birthday, and I can assure your Lordships that I feel a great deal older now than I did then.

If this assessment is correct, quite clearly it has a whole range of serious implications, which I have neither the time nor the expertise to go into now. I would like therefore to turn to the Kingsland report itself and to try to amplify it, if I can, by some of my own experiences in Sub-Committee F.

In terms of transparency, accountability and basic democratic answerability there are a series of identified weaknesses in the way in which the Third Pillar operates. It is a matter of satisfaction—and I say this not in a grudging way—that the Government have responded positively to a number of the points contained in that report. When there has been political debate about treaty changes in the past, governments of both political parties have emphasised the qualitative political differences between items which are dealt with under the Community system and those which are dealt with under the Second and Third Pillars. They have expressed their view that these distinctions justify the entirely different way in which they are dealt with under the auspices of the Union. I am certainly not one of those who decry European Union intergovernmentalism. On the contrary, I am very much unconvinced by those who argue that the Community system, with its developed role for the Commission and the European Parliament, is appropriate for all business taken at European Union level. On the other hand, I have to admit that many of the proponents of intergovernmentalism seem to have the worst of all of the arguments that I have heard canvassed.

I should like to add my support to the very important proposition made by my noble friend Lord Howell about the changing nature of the nation state in the world as it is now developing. It is important to be clear, however, that the European Parliament is not a supranational substitute for national parliaments in watching over European Union business. On the contrary, it is complementary. There is a very considerable degree of community of interest between them. I believe that the scrutiny process in particular would be substantially strengthened if that were more widely recognised on both sides.

In discussing European matters reference is often made to the so-called democratic deficit. There are certainly a number of areas where, by our standards, there do seem to be deficiencies in the way the Union works. One such is focused on the way in which the Council of Ministers meets and the fact that it is held in camera. There are good and fair arguments on both sides, but I hope that I have illustrated by my remarks this afternoon that it is not only in the instruments and the institutions of the Union that one might find ways of achieving the proper scrutiny of matters conducted at a European level. As has already been mentioned, national parliaments have an extraordinarily important part in this process, where we have seen certain developments outlined by the Government and where I believe there is a great need for further expansion in the future as appropriate. Sadly, if one looks across the range of what is currently being dealt with at a European level, it is arguable that the worst deficiencies are to be found in the intergovernmental activities of the Third Pillar.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to the incorporation of the Schengen acquis. I have to confess that the word which springs to my mind when considering what has happened is "fiasco". It seems to me that it could be accidental to sign a treaty and for a parliament to introduce the necessary legislation for some agreement where there might have been a misunderstanding about the meaning of the words. But surely it is careless and reflects no credit on anyone involved, ourselves included, that in this instance we appear to have signed up to something in which the words themselves have not been properly identified. There is a salutary lesson to be learnt from that episode.

It is the nature of the European Union that any business conducted under it and any political debate about it is always under the shadow of the next IGC. We know that before too long there will be a further inter-governmental conference, dealing with matters of enlargement.

I conclude by asking the Minister the following, in the hope that when the Government consider treaty changes in the future they will specifically take into account the need for a thorough scrutiny of matters dealt with at European level by national parliaments. I ask that when they consider those matters they spell out and explain the implications of what is involved, the general constitutional grounds, what the financial implications might be, or how it affects the convenient conduct of government business. They should also specifically take into account how the matters they wish to be dealt with at the European level can be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny by parliaments in all the member states.

I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that if and when the Government do that, just as they deal with these other matters, they will be able to spell out in terms to this Chamber and the other place, precisely how they assess those things.

5.51 p.m.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I have listened to the debate with much interest and mounting apprehension. When one hears the anxieties about justice and home affairs under the Third Pillar which have been expressed by a number of noble Lords who are not exactly noted for their Euro-scepticism, one is perhaps entitled to be fearful of the extent to which those vital areas of our national life are already influenced more than they should be by Brussels.

I intervene briefly to underline a general point about our parliamentary scrutiny of proposed European legislation which has not yet been fully made this evening. The point is that there are large areas, such as all of our industry and commerce which are covered by single market legislation, and such as our environment—there are large areas of our national sovereignty where even the famous scrutiny and reports of your Lordships' House may have little or no effect because, even if the Government agree with your Lordships' findings, they can themselves be outvoted in the Council of Ministers. The proposed takeover directive comes to mind in that respect, as does the droit de suite. The former risks virtually destroying the mergers and acquisitions system in the City of London, and the latter our art market. Aspects of the water directives perhaps come to mind and, of course, our old friend fraud, where the Community has consistently ignored the blandishments of the British Government which have been widely inspired by your Lordships.

Those regrettable situations where we have sold the pass makes this debate and the Minister's reply this evening all the more important. The British Government have not yet ceded our sovereignty over justice and home affairs to the qualified majority vote in Brussels. Justice and home affairs are still largely decided by intergovernmental agreement. In other words, we still have the veto.

If the Government therefore follow the recommendations of this excellent report, particularly that in paragraph 59, they will do much to preserve that sovereignty where it belongs, which is here in the British Parliament. I say that because, as other noble Lords mentioned, paragraph 59 recommends that the Government should accept a formal scrutiny reserve in the areas under debate. I think that that still means that the Government would not agree to any proposal under the Third Pillar in the Council unless the scrutiny reserve had been lifted by our parliamentary Select Committees. One might, just in brackets, add that it would be quite a good idea if the same suggestion could be made for the common foreign and security policy. But that is not the object of the debate this evening.

I put it to the Minister that if the Government do not intend to accept that form of constraint, he should come up with some way of guaranteeing that the will of Parliament will be able to prevail over that of the Executive in decisions taken in Brussels under the Third Pillar. I look forward to his reply with much interest.

5.54 p.m.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, this debate has been enriched by well-informed and thoughtful speeches by noble Lords with particular knowledge and experience of European law-making and parliamentary debate and scrutiny: the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, with his great experience in the European Parliament and here, and my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, distinguished in the foreign field. There was the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, a former successful commissioner, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, a former official of the European Commission, my noble friend Lady Ludford and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, a distinguished parliamentarian. We heard from the eminent editor of the Federalist papers, and former Gladstone Professor, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who always adds a great deal to all debates in this House.

We are here on a rainy, windy dark January afternoon and it is difficult, on an occasion like this—as my noble friend Lady Ludford pointed out—to bring an apparently dry subject to life and explain why it is important. Even if it is not read by the rest of the world, this debate will tend to illuminate rather than obscure the main issues.

Perhaps I may say for myself what a pleasure and privilege it has been to serve on a sub-committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on a subject of real practical importance to the peoples of this country and Europe. He may not thank me for saying so because it may bring him into disrepute in some sections of his party, but I pay tribute not only to his experience and skill but to the commitment he showed when we were doing our work during a difficult time. In the political climate of the time, which we tend to forget was of a deeply divided government and a soured political atmosphere about Europe, he managed to give us leadership. As a sub-committee, we were not divided in any way between Europhiles and Europhobes. We were not divided by political party, we served without any rancour. I believe that the report, to which I contributed only a small part, served Parliament very well.

As has been pointed out, the report was concerned with enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of the way that international treaties are made and their content, under the auspices of the European Union and its institutions. All noble Lords agreed, and it is obvious that there is a need to respond to the democratic deficit, the want of parliamentary control over the executive, whether it is the British Executive or the European executives. It is especially topical for us to debate this now when the Westminster Parliament is devolving, and has devolved, legislative powers down to the Scottish Parliament, down to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and when there is widespread public concern about the proper role of the United Kingdom Parliament in being able to call the United Kingdom Government and the governments of Europe effectively to account.

It is essential to ensure that what governments do on the international plane is effectively scrutinised by the Westminster Parliament and other national parliaments in partnership with one another and in partnership with the European Parliament. It is essential for the executives to be called to account nationally and trans-nationally. The report observed in its introduction that Parliament owes a duty to the public to ensure that Ministers are made fully accountable for their actions in the Council, that matters falling under the Third Pillar can have serious implications for the rights and freedoms of the individual. Parliament must ensure that its procedures for monitoring work under the Third Pillar are effective. I have listened to your Lordships during the debate, and everyone agrees with that basic principle.

There is often a great deal of time-wasting, excessive flattery and self-congratulation in this House. I will not add to it, but I would like to say that it is true that this House and its European Communities Committee, chaired by Lord Tordoff, and the sub-committees, really have been in the vanguard of promoting more effective scrutiny of European Community legislation, as well as British delegated legislation, than any other legislative body across Europe. It is a matter of great satisfaction that what we do is read with admiration right across Europe. I very much hope that, when this House is reformed, those attributes will be properly safeguarded.

It is a most welcome change that the present Government have endorsed the modern democratic principles of transparency, consultation and parliamentary accountability upon which the Kingsland Report is based. In the Labour Party Manifesto, there is an undertaking to overhaul the parliamentary process for scrutinising European legislation. As someone who is not a member of that party, I would say that the Government have done so. They are fulfilling that commitment.

The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that he was particularly concerned about how this country is governed. I am sure that he did not mean to say that he was not equally concerned that the rest of Europe and the other countries of Europe should also be well governed. He said that he opposed the Third Pillar on justice and home affairs because of some conflict between what he called the Napoleonic justice system and the tried and tested system that we know so well, of common law. I think that he suggested that you could not marry the two together, that it was somehow a question of oil and water.

I disagree. The underlying principles of justice and respect for basic human rights—as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, knows better than anyone, as he is a distinguished historian of political ideas and thought—spring from British 17th century political thought and from the age of the European enlightenment in the 18th century. It is true that there are major procedural differences between the civil law and common law but, as someone who has had to learn to swim in a different legal environment since I joined the Bar in 1963, I and my colleagues have learned that the two European courts—much attacked by Europhobes—have worked well in partnership with national courts, one dealing with justice under the treaties of the European Communities and the other with human rights. Members of the British legal profession—Scots, English and Northern Irish—with different legal systems, have worked well together. We have worked well together with our colleagues in European countries. I believe that the new generation is well placed to work within European law. Our senior courts have proved at least as competent as any in Europe in interpreting and applying European Community law. If one looks beneath the surface differences between the different legal systems, one finds common principles.

I would also say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that mutual assistance is vital across countries for policing, for countering serious crime and terrorism, and for enforcing criminal and civil justice. National territorial jurisdictions cannot in isolation from each other work successfully. Not only is there a vital need for co-operation and assistance between and among national courts: that need is vital also between and among national governments and between and among national parliaments.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, as the noble Lord was good enough to mention my few remarks, I wonder if he will give way.

I do not think that I indicated otherwise in my remarks. All I would say to the noble Lord is that I do not see why you have to have the absurdity of the European Union to reach that excellent collaboration.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, of course I am one of those who does not regard the European Union as absurd. If one starts from that premise, obviously the conclusions will be vitally different. The point I emphasise is that transnational co-operation within the European Union and beyond is essential in the modern world.

We on these Benches welcome the Government's response to the 29 conclusions and recommendations made in the Kingsland Report. The first Government response was in November 1997 to 22 of those conclusions; the second was in November 1998. As I think all noble Lords have said, overall the response given by the new Government has been very positive and satisfactory.

We are delighted that in the Government's initial response the Home Secretary emphasised the Government's commitment to the principle of greater openness. Mr. Straw also said that he wanted to give Parliament the fullest possible opportunity to examine in detail draft European Union legislation on justice and home affairs matters before it was adopted by the Council of Ministers. We greatly welcome this. We are also glad that the Government have agreed to treat all Third Pillar documents as documents depositable for scrutiny. They have given an assurance that exceptions to this rule will be rare. It is enormously encouraging when compared with the ice age that was broken on 1st May two years ago.

It is vastly encouraging to note that the Government have refrained from making distinctions between the various types of documents that will be subject to scrutiny, particularly because Third Pillar documents take several forms—that is, conventions, agreements, joint actions, joint positions, decisions and recommendations. We are pleased that the Government have made a commitment to interpret the exceptions for confidentiality and secrecy narrowly.

We also welcome the Government's commitment to providing a detailed and speedy report on the activities of the Justice and Home Affairs Councils. It will provide Parliament and the public with a very useful way of staying abreast of new developments.

Looking beyond the European Union—and I am very glad to see the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell and Lord Bridges, in their places as I know that both of them are particularly interested in this subject—there is a need for broader parliamentary scrutiny of the treaty-making function. International treaties, with both European Union and non-Union countries, cover a multitude of subjects—from air transport to the environment, from human rights standards to defence obligations—and many have a knock-on effect for our domestic legislation.

I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that one cannot change private rights or obligations under our legal and constitutional system except through legislation approved by both Houses of Parliament. I see, therefore, no menace in the Third Pillar or in the treaty-making function provided that that principle is always adhered to, which I believe it is.

While the making of an international treaty is done by the executive under prerogative powers, there has been concern in many countries about democratic accountability. Many countries in the European Union and the Commonwealth have adopted much better procedures than we have for working in partnership with government when they make treaties. Under the European Union we now have a very good system—which is getting better as a result of the response of the present Government—of scrutinising what is being done in public international law by governments under the Third Pillar. But we do not yet have a good system for doing the same thing with international treaties and conventions that go beyond the European Union.

I introduced a Private Member's Bill a couple of years ago—the Treaties (Parliamentary Approval) Bill—which the previous Government were kind enough to treat benevolently. As a result, we have an explanatory memorandum procedure under what is called the Ponsonby Rule. But we still have no treaty scrutiny committee in this House or another place. We have explanatory memoranda but that is not good enough. Australia is well ahead. The Australian Senate has a well developed treaty scrutiny committee. I very much hope that the Government will build on the work of their predecessors and support the idea of a treaty scrutiny committee that can work in the wider field.

In short, we welcome the Government's response both to this report and to that of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. Further work needs to be done on how best to tailor the scrutiny procedures of this House to those of another place to ensure the effective co-ordination of scrutiny activities and greater accountability in treaty-making activity both within and beyond the European Union. But without reservation we welcome the general approach and commitment of the Government to enhancing parliamentary scrutiny.

6.11 p.m.

Viscount Bridgeman

My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Kingsland and the members of his committee on this excellent report and thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate today. We on these Benches give a very warm welcome to the report with its emphasis on transparency. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, rightfully pointed out, the United Kingdom gives as great a scrutiny to European Union legislation as any other member with its Select Committee and six sub-committees. Having served on Sub-Committee C I am aware from witnesses of the respect in which the reports of the Select Committee are held within the European Union. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has also made reference to this.

In its consideration of Third Pillar matters Sub-Committee F is particularly close to the legislative process of the Union. It is all the more important that it is afforded every facility to do its job as effectively as possible. Predictably, we have heard a wide spectrum of views on the state and future of the European Union. But the recommendations of this committee are very largely of housekeeping. It is pleasing to note the remarks by several speakers about the co-operation of the Home Secretary and his department, although I do not necessarily agree with the geological interpretation of the events of 1st May put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. However, we look forward to hearing from the Minister further confirmation of the progress of the assistance that is being received.

The recommendations include a suggestion that the Government should provide explanatory notes to the committee at the early stages of legislation. My noble friend Lord Howell has taken this a little further and suggested that it is very much a matter of the Government taking the committee into their confidence both as to their intentions and, just as importantly, the intentions of other member states. Another recommendation is that it is most important that the committee should be kept informed of subsequent developments in the drafting of legislation. Several noble Lords have referred to the five levels and the complications that can arise with presidential and Council interference at that stage. The provision of agendas in advance of meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council and detailed reports of those meetings afterwards are all very welcome in assisting the committee in its work.

We appreciate that there are aspects to do with such matters as policing that must remain confidential but, as paragraph 76 of the report of the committee makes clear, exceptions for confidentiality and secrecy must be strictly interpreted. In the light of that, we urge the Government to bear in mind continually the need for a presumption in favour of transparency. We very much welcome the proposal for an ombudsman and the valuable role to be played by non-governmental organisations.

Therefore, we are very much in agreement with the recommendations of the committee for an even more effective role for itself and hence for Parliament. I again congratulate my noble friend Lord Kingsland and his committee.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

My Lords, this is a masterly report and I hope that the Government have responded fully and generously, as most noble Lords have indicated. I congratulate both chairmen of the committee that has produced this excellent report. I hope that we have demonstrated fully by our response that we believe in strong and effective parliamentary scrutiny which is essential for the proper conduct of government business. This is true of all government business, European as well as domestic matters. I am grateful for the tributes to the Home Secretary. I am just as grateful, if not more grateful, for the tribute paid to the work of the officials which is laborious, unsung and generally done outside the public eye.

The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I believe partly to tease me, asked whether the officials would have been better occupied attending to domestic matters. It is very rarely that I can tease the noble Lord back by suggesting that that is a shade over-simplistic in these days. As regards the appropriate conduct of our affairs perhaps I may cite a few examples: asylum; immigration; law and order; international crime; money-laundering; and drug dealing. All of those matters must be dealt with in the wider European context. We would fail hopelessly in our domestic duties if we did not encourage and empower officials to deal with their European colleagues. I shall say no more about the noble Lord's point.

I can fairly say that no major point in the report has not been favourably accepted by the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, points out, very full responses have been made by the Home Secretary to deal with most of the questions that have been posed by noble Lords: one in November 1997 with an undertaking to reconsider and take matters further and a final letter in November 1998. I do not believe anyone can suggest that any proposition put forward by the committee in its report has not been carefully attended to. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said—I am happy to endorse it—virtually every proposition has been agreed to. Those that have not are largely ones not within our present gift.

We have a very good system in your Lordships' House—it is probably the best—of scrutinising European business, but I agree that historically the system has not always kept up with new demands and changing circumstances, as the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Howell pointed out. We must be constantly alert to the fact that we are dealing with shifting circumstances and therefore must alter our procedures accordingly. That indicates the timeliness of this report and the Government's response to it. It was our manifesto pledge to overhaul the system of parliamentary scrutiny of European business, and I am grateful for the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that we have delivered on that. The report makes a number of very important recommendations, virtually all of which we have accepted. Many relate to the scrutiny of the Third Pillar. Those were implemented in 1997 and we believe that they are working well. Some recommendations had implications for business outside the Third Pillar, which is why our response was dual: one in 1997 and one in November 1998.

There has been debate in another place. Relevant changes to the system were put in place at the end of the previous parliamentary Session. I shall deal with a few of them in a moment or two. An important one is that the European Scrutiny Committee in another place (recently renamed) now has the remit and work of scrutinising all European business including Third Pillar business. I concede that this was essential to remove the anomaly that the elected Chamber had no role in scrutinising the Second or Third Pillars. A scrutiny reserve resolution now applies to all three pillars of European business. Subject to very narrowly defined exceptions, that prevents Ministers from agreeing in Council to any measure on which parliamentary scrutiny has not been completed. That gives the parliamentary scrutiny body an extremely important power.

The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, asked, with particular reference to paragraph 59, what was the Government's response. That is set out fully in Jack Straw's letter of November 1998, but perhaps I may quote from it to assist your Lordships. It states: The Government agrees that it is essential for parliament to play an effective role in scrutinising the Third Pillar. The Government welcomes adoption by the House of Commons of the proposal of the Modernisation Committee to amend the scrutiny reserve resolution so that it extends to the Third Pillar". I believe that the following words are those which the noble Lord wishes to hear: The amended resolution now prevents the Government from agreeing any Third Pillar proposal until scrutiny has been completed. The only exceptions to this rule would be those specified within the resolution itself; that is, that the Minister considers that the proposal in question is confidential, routine, trivial or the same as a proposal on which scrutiny has already been completed or for other special reasons". I am happy to give that reassurance, which I hope is helpful to the noble Lord.

The scrutiny reserve resolution—and this topic has been raised by several noble Lords—now applies to all three pillars. Therefore, we cannot agree in council with any measure until scrutiny has been completed.

An improved system of reporting to Parliament on the preparations for and outcomes of justice and home affairs Councils is now in place. Those are extremely important changes, some of them quite fundamental. I am happy to reiterate that the Government have excellent relations with the committee and that we intend to maintain and build upon them. I entirely agree that one achieves a better product, to use the jargon, if one fully co-operates and listens to other views. Obviously the obtaining of the views of others depends on the provision of information to them at as early a stage as possible and in as full a manner as possible.

We wish to continue our excellent relations. We are extremely grateful for the work that the committee has already done. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, invited me to set my reply in the context of the Amsterdam Treaty. I am happy to do that. We welcome unreservedly the treaty's provisions on openness. We look forward to ratification by all member states. At the moment of course, in the nature of things, we cannot unilaterally implement the provisions but we are extremely keen on two aspects: to encourage openness among some of our European partners who have not perhaps the same two-year tradition of openness that we have; and I undertake that in so far as is sensibly possible, we shall keep the committee and/or your Lordships' House fully informed on progress there.

The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked further whether or not all proposals that were ever tabled would be put to Sub-Committee F, including proposals relating to secondary legislation. Yes, we undertook to supply all proposals to the sub-committee in our reply to it. I know that the noble Lord knew that and simply wished me to inform your Lordships of it.

The noble Lord asked also about agendas. We are committed to sending agendas of JHA Councils in advance. There is a difficulty—and this is not a fudge—in sending the agendas of supporting committees. There are so many of them; they meet so regularly; I could not undertake to be able to provide them all in time for proper scrutiny.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked about the agenda for the Tampere Heads of Government Council in Finland in October. It is early days. We do not yet know what is being proposed. We intend to contribute fully to the discussions leading to decisions about the agenda, which should be useful. However, I cannot give any further detail at this stage. Your Lordships may not find that surprising as October is a little way away.

My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis raised questions about the European Parliament possibly supporting the domestic Parliament here, helping in its scrutiny role. The report recommended that national parliaments and the European Parliament should explore together the possibilities for mutual support. That is not a matter for the Government to take further. If there are any particular views about co-operation between the domestic legislature here and the European Parliament, we should look favourably on them. In an endeavour to be helpful, I should say that the Scrutiny Committee takes evidence from whatever source it pleases.

My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis asked also for guidelines about deposited material. We have amended Standing Order No. 143 in another place and that therefore, applying to your Lordships' House with similar effect, gives that clear definition.

The question was raised also by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis about the minimum period for parliamentary scrutiny. The Treaty of Amsterdam provides that. The scrutiny reserve resolution gives the Scrutiny Committee a good deal of power.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to paragraph 115 of the Select Committee's report. I believe that it is conclusion 29 but it is not identified as such. However, I understand the point which she made. The response to that is found in Jack Straw's letter of November 1997: The Government agrees with the view expressed by the Committee in paragraph 115 … that it is important for there to be an opportunity for early Parliamentary scrutiny of proposals under the new Title. The Government's view is, however, that the United Kingdom is unlikely to wish to participate in the majority of such proposals. It accordingly suggests a modified procedure, whereby all proposals under the new Title would be deposited, but a full Explanatory Memorandum would be produced only in the following circumstances: … in the case where, at deposit or afterwards, the Government decided to participate in the proposals; or … where the Committee considered it necessary to request an Explanatory Memorandum, such requests to be made within one month of deposit of the proposal". The dual proposals provide the opportunity for the Government to take the initiative or, if the Government do not take the initiative of offering an explanatory memorandum, the committee would be able to require it.

The noble Baroness raised a further question which related to the minimum period for parliamentary scrutiny and whether or not that would apply to proposals by member states, the Commission or third parties. We believe that the minimum period should apply to all proposals from the Commission and from member states. The question of third parties may be a matter of legal interpretation under the Amsterdam Treaty. However, that is our plain stance.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, observed that having Council meetings in camera as a general practice is not desirable. He recognised the obvious need for secrecy in some circumstances. That is entirely consistent with our approach. Some meetings will have to be kept confidential. Some do not need to be. We support greater openness in Council meetings wherever possible. I welcome the recent development that the first ever open debate held at a JHA Council was held under the United Kingdom presidency. So it can be done, given goodwill and a certain amount of persuasive effort.

I hope that I have dealt with at least all the themes which have been enunciated if not every specific question. The Government are very grateful for the report. I hope that we have demonstrated that by action and not simply by words. Personally, I was extremely grateful for the quality of the debate which your Lordships have provided.

6.28 p.m.

Lord Kingsland

My Lords, I should like to say for the first, but I hope not the last, time in the life of this Government that I am entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply to this debate. I should also like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon. Your Lordships' contributions have greatly enhanced the usefulness of the report. I commend the Motion to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.