EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Hansard, 10 November 1999)

HL Deb 10 November 1999 vol 606 cc1352-61 1352

§ The Committee considered proposals for changes to the terms of reference and title of the European Communities Committee. The Committee also considered the need for the House to pass a formal Scrutiny Reserve Resolution similar to that of the House of Commons.¹ The changes are necessary to reflect recent developments in the European Union, in particular the coming into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, and changes made by the House of Commons in relation to its select committee on European Legislation.

§ Terms of reference

§ The Committee recommends the following terms of reference for the select committee: That a Select Committee be appointed to consider European Union documents and other matters relating to the European Union. The expression "European Union documents" shall include the following documents:

(i) Any proposal under the Community Treaties for legislation by the Council or the Council acting jointly with the European Parliament;
(ii) Any document which is published for submission to the European Council, the Council or the European Central Bank;
(iii) Any proposal for a common strategy, a joint action or a common position under Title V (provisions on a common foreign and security policy) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council or to the European Council;
(iv) Any proposal for a common position, framework decision, decision or a convention under Title VI (provisions on 1353 police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters) of the Treaty on European Union which is prepared for submission to the Council;
(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;
(vi) Any other document relating to European Union matters deposited in the House by a Minister of the Crown.

§ That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committee's any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of Sub-Committees, but that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman for the purpose of particular inquiries; that two be the quorum of such Sub-Committees;

§ That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a Sub-Committee;

§ That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;

§ That the Committee and any Sub-Committeee have power to adjourn from place to place;

§ That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

§ That the Reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

§ That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the European Communities Committee or any Sub-Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee: and That the Committee do meet On……… at………"

§ The Committee's title The Committee's title no longer accurately reflects the scope of its work. We recommend that the title should be "Select Committee on the European Union".

§ Scrutiny Reserve Resolution The Commons Scrutiny Reserve Resolution has always been held to apply to the House of LordS. The procedures of the two Committees are now sufficiently different to make it desirable that the House of Lords adopt its own Scrutiny Reserve Resolution, as follows: That—

§ (1) No Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council to any proposal for European Community legislation or for 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—

(a) which is still subject to scrutiny (that is, on which the European Union Committee has not completed its scrutiny);
(b) on which the European Union Committee has made a report to the House for debate, but on which the debate has not yet taken place;

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

(a) agreement to a programme, plan or recommendation for European Community legislation;
(b) political agreement;
(c) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (codecision), agreement to 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; and
(d) in the case of a proposal on which the Council acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 252 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (cooperation), agreement to a common position.

1354

§ (3) The Minister concerned may, however, give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or which is awaiting debate in the House—

(a) if he considers that it is confidential, routine or trivial or is substantially the same as a proposal on which scrutiny has been completed;
(b) if the European Union Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld pending completion of scrutiny or the holding of the debate.

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

(a) in every such case, to the European Union Committee at the first opportunity after reaching his decision; and
(b) in the case of a proposal awaiting debate in the House, to the House at the opening of the debate on the Committee's Report.

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

§ Recommendation

§ Accordingly the Committee recommends:

—the terms of reference set out above
—the new title set out above
—the adoption of the above Scrutiny Reserve Resolution.

§ ¹The Lords Committee's work is underpinned by an undertaking given by the Government that they will not agree in the Council of Ministers to any proposal on which parliamentary scrutiny at Westminster has not been completed. This undertaking was formalised in a House of Commons resolution (the "Scrutiny Reserve Resolution") in 1980. The Resolution was most recently renewed by the Commons on 17 November 1998. There is at present no equivalent Lords resolution.

§ Lord Brightman
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees a question of which I have given him notice. Under the revised terms of reference of the Select Committee on the European Union, can he say whether the committee will be able to consider the guidelines on the drafting of Community legislation, which are being produced under the Treaty of Amsterdam? Your Lordships may feel envious of some of these guidelines; for example, Community legislation should be, clear, simple … and readily understandable by the public". Again, the guidelines state that, legislation should be drafted clearly, simply…Overly long sentences, unnecessarily convoluted wording…should be avoided". I hope that I am not speaking out of order if I say that I look forward to the day when similar guidelines might apply to the drafting of our own legislation. None exists at the moment.

§ Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, bearing in mind the widening of the powers of the European Union, especially following the Amsterdam Treaty, it is only right and proper that the European Communities Committee should in fact be renamed. I say that because the powers that have been extended to the European Union are very great indeed. It is right 1355 and proper that this Parliament should be able to examine the very wide range of issues which now come within the purview of the European Union—much to the regret, I might say, of some of us in this House and many people throughout the country.
Noble Lords should welcome the extension of the writ of the Select Committee. I am sure that it will do its job as thoroughly in the future as it has done in the past. I sincerely hope that the debates we shall have in this House will be well attended and that they will take place in prime time and not on Fridays or late at night. These are important matters. The Select Committee does a great deal of hard work which should be appreciated and discussed.
I am among those who believe that the membership of the European Communities Select Committee is too narrow and that it has been made up of people whom I would regard as being very favourably inclined towards the European Union. It is not sufficiently representative of those who are a little sceptical of the European Union, of what it does, of what powers it should have, and of whether those powers should be further extended. I hope therefore that when these matters are discussed and when the membership of the committee is discussed, the views not only of Members of this House and the make-up of Members of this House will be taken into consideration, but also the views of people in the country who are far more sceptical of the whole business than might be gathered from the views sometimes expressed here and in another place. If we are to have a proper debate about what is happening in Europe we need to have a much better balanced Select Committee. I hope that that will be addressed in the new Session.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, I welcome the report of the proceedings of the Select Committee. I note in particular that they were ordered to be printed two days ago and that a very short time has elapsed for detailed consideration to be given to them.
At the risk of trying your Lordships' patience a little more, I should say that over the past two years it has been my personal function to make up for the lack of scrutiny that there has been of European legislation and proposals so far. The Select Committee of this House, which still exists to the end of the Session, has, together with its sub-committees, obviously done a good job. However, it has never been able to deal with the whole. Whole sheaves of legislation go onto the stature book without receiving any proper parliamentary scrutiny at all. It has been part of my personal function to carry out research from time to time and put myself in a position where I can venture to inform your Lordships about what exactly is happening.
These new proposals are quite unexceptionable; indeed, I welcome them. But there are certain queries that the Government will have to address. First, will the proposals in this report—in conjunction with, or in substitution for, as the case may be, deliberations and scrutiny in another place—be sufficient to achieve the necessary objectives? The proposals that emanate from the Commission, and the various items put 1356 forward in the terms of reference, do not number merely 10, 20, 30 or 40 that the Select Committee here has been able to deal with. They number literally hundreds.
From time to time in another place the scrutiny committee has been quite incapable of dealing with the stuff forwarded to it. I have lists of it. I know exactly what I am talking about, and I know exactly what the regulations comprise. Despite my relief at no longer having to do what the new committee is to do, I still have great reservations as to how effective it will be and how it will be able to cope in the best parliamentary traditions.
I refer to the scrutiny reserve resolution on page four of the report. Paragraph (3) states, The Minister concerned may, however, give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or which is awaiting debate in the House— (a) if he considers that it is confidential, routine or trivial or is substantially the same as a proposal on which scrutiny has been completed". That can always be subject to a wide governmental determination if I know my civil servants aright. The report continues, (b) if the European Union Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld pending completion of scrutiny or the holding of the debate". I should have thought that that too gives an elasticity that needs to be far more comprehensively covered. The report continues at paragraph (4): The Minister concerned may also give agreement to a proposal which is still subject to scrutiny or awaiting debate in the House if he decides that for special reasons agreement should be given; but he should explain his reasons". I ask noble Lords to note the word "should". This once again gives any government of the day a degree of elasticity that is not always consistent with good parliamentary government as distinct from government controlled policy.
The report says nothing about the attendance of the public as regards the deliberations of the committee, or any sub-committee. At the moment some indication is usually given in—I shall not call it the caprice, because that is too frivolous a term to use—the judgment of the chairman that the proceedings ought not to be held in public. No stipulation is given here as to whether the deliberations should be held in public or not. Perhaps your Lordships may come to the conclusion that I have been finicky in these matters. All I can say in answer to that is that I have tried my best to act consistently with good parliamentary democracy as I have always understood it, old Labour though I am and shall remain.

Lord Bowness
My Lords, I too welcome the proposals for greater scrutiny and the possibility of wider debate principally because I believe that it would do something to dispel the obvious prejudices and hostilities to the European Union that are so frequently expressed by some speakers in your Lordships' House, as we have heard today.

§ Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe
My Lords, when he winds up I hope that the Chairman of Committees will touch 1357 on the fact that for the first time for a long time we have not had a House of Lords Offices report on the last day or so. Can it be because this deals with ancillary rights for departing hereditary Peers and he wishes to deprive them of any opportunity to make formal input on the Floor of the House?

§ Lord Peston
My Lords, I welcome the report which I think is a step forward. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will, I hope, remain his normal courteous self—as is generally the case with all your Lordships—and pay no attention whatever to what I regard as the insulting remarks of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon on the membership of the European Communities Committee up to now. The implications of his remarks are that these people are biased and incapable of carrying out a dispassionate and objective scrutiny of European matters because they do not include people of a particular point of view. As I understand it, that has never been the policy of your Lordships' House. That policy has always been to choose the very best people from among those who say they are available. I hope that we stick to that tradition.
As someone who was many years ago involved with the committee and who reads the reports—and, when one can, other things—I have never noticed any bias in this matter against what are called the "Eurosceptics". This House has always maintained its traditions of appointing a wide range of people to these committees—but people who are able to do the job. I hope that we do not move from that now or at any time in future.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, I wonder whether I should intervene at this stage. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Generally, I think that your Lordships will agree that the reports which come from your Lordships' Select Committee are as unbiased as they can be in the sense that at all times they are derived from the evidence which is put before it.
There is a wide spectrum of view in the subcommittees and in the Select Committee. I should say straightaway that the membership of the Select Committee is not my job—that is a matter for the usual channels—although I have a considerable input into the membership of sub-committees. When I look at the sub-committees and see the wide range of opinions, it is surprising to me that we come up with such unanimity in our reports. The reason that we come up with such unanimity is because Members of your Lordships' House who act in Select Committees and sub-committees consider the evidence and come to their conclusions on that basis.
I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said. He is quite right: there are large amounts of legislation coming out of the European Commission and the European Council which are not as well scrutinised as we would wish. But, bearing in mind that we have some 70 to 75 people working on a regular basis on the legislation that comes forward, the majority of the rest is what we in this House would 1358 describe as secondary legislation. I would that your Lordships' House considered secondary legislation coming from the Government in a proper way. When we are in a position to do that, perhaps then we are in a position to criticise those who do not scrutinise European legislation in the same way.
I believe that the Procedure Committee report which is before the House will be of considerable help. We have managed to bring ourselves into line with the rules and procedures of the House of Commons. At the same time, we have managed to maintain the degree of flexibility in the subjects we discuss that this House has always had. Therefore, I believe that we are in a much stronger position than another place to deal with this legislation.

§ Baroness Park of Monmouth
My Lords, in supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said about the difficulty, in practice, of holding Ministers to prior consultation, I wonder whether the problem which used to bedevil all committees—I refer to the delay in receiving documents from Brussels—has been solved. Very often the delay was because the documents were written first in Finnish and then had to be translated, and for all kinds of other practical reasons. I remember that a point was made of this when we discussed the Treaty of Amsterdam. I should like to be reassured in the Chairman of Committee's answer that that problem has been solved. Without a solution, it will be very difficult in any case to make the scrutiny effective.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff—who I know of old—did not intend any slur on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which, up to now, I have had the honour to be a member, appointed by your Lordships, for a number of years. I think he was probably complaining about the policy on statutory instruments, which is outwith the remit of the Joint Committee. I agree with him that that is something which must be changed, and changed soon.

§ Baroness Sharples
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, on the question of ancillary rights for those hereditary Peers who are departing this House. It is a great shame that the matter has not been discussed while they are still here in order that they may have an input into the discussion.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth.
Nothing is perfect in this world but, in recent times, the speed of transmission of documents from Brussels, through the Cabinet Office and other departments, has improved enormously. If the noble Baroness and others would care to read the correspondence with Ministers that we publish from time to time, they will find a section in the back—it might be described as the "black book"—which deals with those occasions when 1359 this has not been adhered to. We move fiercely against departments that do not transmit things rapidly enough.

§ Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, perhaps I may say a word as a former member of the scrutiny committee, not a present one. I am very impressed by the tremendous efforts that the scrutiny committee has invariably made to ensure that there is sufficient time to look in detail at the proposals put forward by the European Commission before they get to the Council of Ministers for a final decision.
The work of the scrutiny committees is widely admired far outside this House and far outside this country. It is one of the jewels in the crown of this House, and we should say so clearly. Our scrutiny committees have brought about a remarkable achievement. I warmly welcome the new report because it will further strengthen the work of the scrutiny committees.
Perhaps I may add one other note. The problems of scrutiny which we face go much deeper even than the European scrutiny committee, which is crucial in observing and scrutinising European legislation. Last night in another place I had the pleasure of listening to a guillotined debate on the issue of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which is shortly to come before us. In the course of that guillotined debate, approximately three-quarters of Lords amendments were not debated. The issue of proper scrutiny of legislation is at least as serious in terms of our own domestic procedures as it is with respect to European legislation. When the new Session begins, I very much hope that the House will be able to look seriously at the whole question of how we scrutinise domestic as well as European legislation.

§ The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, first of all, perhaps I can deal with a matter which has arisen but which does not arise out of the report. As your Lordships will, I hope, know, I am always anxious to be helpful to your Lordships. If I had been able to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, said about the Offices Committee's consideration of ancillary rights, I would have reminded your Lordships that it had been agreed that no decisions should be taken about those matters in this Session of Parliament. Your Lordships will also know—perhaps your Lordships do not need to be reminded—that active consideration has been given to these matters. They have not been and will not be overlooked.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and others, who have given a welcome to the report. I am also very grateful to my noble friend the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees, who chairs your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities, as it is at the moment, for his very helpful remarks.
Perhaps I may make this general point, briefly at first. Your Lordships will know that that is one of the committees that I do not have the privilege of chairing. 1360 I very much share what has been said, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the fact that it has contributed as much as, if not more than, any other body to the reputation of your Lordships' House through its scrutiny work—not only here, not only in this country, but internationally, and not least in Brussels, where it perhaps matters a good deal.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, mentioned the question of membership and the spectrum of views being represented on the Select Committee. My noble friend Lord Tordoff has said something about that already. It is not an unfamiliar point to be made; your Lordships have heard this point before. The prime point is that the scrutiny work of this committee and its sub-committees is conducted on a non-partisan basis. However, it has been the case over the years that different strands of opinion have been represented on it and its sub-committees. As your Lordships will recall, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington—who is one of the supreme Members of your Lordships' House for the homework that he does—has made his contribution over the years as a member of that Select Committee. But I bear very much in mind what has been said about the nonpartisan nature of the important scrutiny work carried out by the committee and the sub-committees. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his comments on this matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, referred to delays in receiving documents. That has been a problem. Vigorous action has been taken, not least by my noble friend Lord Tordoff, and substantial improvements have been made. I regret that I cannot meet the noble Baroness's dearest wish. It is not possible and it would not be prudent for me to give an absolute guarantee that the important matter that she has raised has not been overlooked and, if necessary, will be pursued.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, among others, referred to the exceptions it is possible for Ministers on occasion to make. This is not a new provision. There has been provision for exceptions to be made on previous occasions, not least on the grounds of security, which is perhaps the most obvious case. I do not believe that such exceptions are made use of lightly by Ministers. If they were, those Ministers would be called to account by the Select Committee. That committee is sometimes a little tough with Ministers when the occasion demands. For that reason, I do not share the fears that have been expressed on this matter. If any undue use of such exceptions were to be made by Ministers, not only would they be called to account, but your Lordships would wish to consider any further measures that might be needed to tighten up on the matter. I believe that it can be dealt with in that way.
I hope that I have responded to many of the points raised on the general matters. I shall of course bear in mind the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. I regret that I did not know that the noble and learned Lord proposed to raise this matter today. It is an issue to which he has turned his attention in the past in your Lordships' House, and I believe that 1361 his comments on clear language drew sympathetic echoes all around the Chamber. I would not be averse to joining in with those remarks. The noble and learned Lord made his points well and they shall be borne in mind. Whatever can be done by noble Lords to encourage clear language will be appreciated by us all. I hope that those comments deal with the various points which have been made.

§ Lord Brightman
My Lords, perhaps I may apologise to the noble Lord. It is clear that he has not received the letter that I sent to him yesterday, together with a copy of the draft guidelines for Community legislation. I do not understand how the letter failed to reach him because it was posted before midday yesterday.

§ The Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for that explanation. As soon as the noble and learned Lord indicated that he had given notice of the points he wished to raise, I had assumed that something of that nature must have happened and that the missive went astray. However, it has not gone amiss because the noble and learned Lord has made his point very well this afternoon. I hope that I have gone some way to satisfying his worry.

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.