§ Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab)Perhaps I should begin by explaining the two incidents during the summer recess that provoked me to request a debate on the scrutiny of European legislation. The first occurred on what was obviously a slow news day, when Digby Jones, the director-general of the CBI, got a lot of publicity for saying that Parliament was asleep on the job of scrutinising European legislation. The second was a Conservative call for the European Scrutiny Committee to sit in public when it holds its deliberations. I should like to deal with both of those issues later in my contribution, but first I shall address the much bigger issue of why this debate is important—but perhaps it would be appropriate to do so after the minute's silence.
The House observed one minute's silence in memory of those killed in Beslan in Russia.
§ 11.1 am
§ Mr. KidneyI praise the Speaker's decision to observe a minute's silence, and the way in which you observed it in this Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It fills us all with great sadness and anger that so many civilians, particularly children, had their lives taken away in the Beslan siege in Russia. Our sympathies must be with the relatives of all who lost loved ones, and our solidarity must be with the Russian people in resisting terrorist activity.
To return to the scrutiny of European legislation, the big difficulty that we face in making our scrutiny in this place successful and effective can be seen in the climate surrounding all things European on the streets of our great country. Let us consider the recent European elections and the again disappointing turnout. Why are people in this country not engaging with the activities of the European Union as a whole? Is it down to disinterest, dislike, or ignorance? Those are problems that we need to explore and overcome.
A second issue is the commentary on the draft constitutional treaty, which is due to be considered not only by the House, but by the public at large in a referendum. Most public commentators treat the constitutional treaty with a degree of hostility and disregard that is most unhealthy for our future relations with the rest of the European Union. Parliament has an important role to play in making our scrutiny of the EU institutions—for which, after all, we are accountable to the UK public—effective. If debates such as this one and the scrutiny work that we do in Parliament add to people's understanding of the European Union and its institutions, so much the better.
It is worth reminding ourselves what European legislation is. Loosely, it fits into two categories—although it is worth pointing out that the draft treaty would make changes to the categories of and the names given to European legislation. At the moment the two loose categories are directives and regulations. Directives are largely frameworks, and national Parliaments are left with the role of legislating in order to transpose the effects of directives into domestic law. Regulations, on the other hand, apply directly in all member states. It follows that different approaches to scrutiny are needed for the two types of legislation.
395WH In respect of both, we ought to ask ourselves how we can influence the final form that will be settled on in the European Union before the legislation comes to this country. In addition, in the case of directives, if domestic legislation is required to give effect to the legislation, we should scrutinise the domestic legislation. It is on that point that we are most open to an accusation that has long been made, that we over-elaborate and overfill our domestic legislation when carrying out our responsibility to implement European directives—so-called gold-plating.
If we are to influence the European Union stages, it is important that we understand how the legislation is formed in the first place. I hope that it is understood in this place—it is certainly not among the public—that the Council of Ministers, not the Commission that sits in Brussels, is the legislature. Largely, the Commission proposes actions and the Council of Ministers legislates—although these days, under the arrangements for co-decision with the European Parliament, something like eight in 10 cases involve both the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. There is a complex procedure to conciliate any disagreements between them before the final form of the legislation is established.
When we talk about our scrutiny of what goes on in the Council of Ministers, in which our national representative is the appropriate Minister from our Parliament, it is crucial to bear in mind that the Council's proceedings are secret and that we do not know what our representative says and does during those proceedings. Those of us who support the improvement of the European Union and—by and large—the draft treaty for constitutional change, see that the draft treaty would make the proceedings of the Council of Ministers public and accessible to us, which would improve our scrutiny of what goes on there and our ability to hold Ministers in this place to account for the decisions that they make and the votes that they cast.
That is the state of legislation in the European Union; we should next consider our system of scrutiny for that legislation. We have two Houses of Parliament, which have two separate, although complementary, Committee systems for carrying out that scrutiny on our behalf. The two systems may be separate, but there are excellent relations between Committee members in both Houses.
In this House, the European Scrutiny Committee does an extraordinarily diligent job on our behalf in sifting through thousands of documents. I am not a member of that Committee, so I am an objective observer, and I honestly believe that it does a magnificent job. It sifts through documents at the earliest possible stage, sorts out those of particular significance to this country's or to Members' interests, and draws attention to the documents when necessary. An important part of its work has been to uphold the scrutiny reserve when, as they sometimes have in the past, Ministers have gone ahead and negotiated before scrutiny in this place has been completed.
The House of Commons' and the House of Lords' systems have a high reputation, including across the European Union, for the thoroughness of their scrutiny. If anything, the reputation of the House of Lords system 396WH is slightly ahead, and that is an additional spur to those of us who want to give attention to improving the scrutiny system in the House of Commons.
The system in this country tends to be document-based. We receive the documents at an early stage and sift through them as I have explained. However, not every national Parliament adopts the same approach. Some prefer what is called a pre-scrutiny model or, in some areas, a mandating model. Our system focuses on the early stages of legislation, when the Commission proposal is first adopted, but the pre-scrutiny model tends to focus on the conclusion of the negotiations in the Council. Perhaps the best-known examples of system are the so-called Nordic models of Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Documents are available about how the Nordic region conducts its scrutiny of European affairs, and my first impression of reading about their systems was that Members of their Parliaments are willing to give up a considerable number of their Fridays to the scrutiny of their Ministers' activities in Council negotiations.
In those countries, there is a very strong tradition of parliamentary control over Governments, and they are willing to allow a Committee to act on behalf of their Parliament in establishing what line they think their Minister should take in European negotiations. Of course, they only have one Chamber, not two, so there is no danger of a conflict of mandates. In the best Nordic systems, the word "mandate" is a bit overstated: Ministers are not sent to Brussels to negotiate with a strict set of rules about what they must come back with. They are allowed some flexibility to negotiate and make compromises. If it were otherwise, it would be difficult for them to have an influence on debate in the Council of Ministers.
Perhaps an obvious question to ask when we talk about improvements to scrutiny is whether if there are two systems—a document-based one and a pre-scrutiny one—it is possible to combine the two. I have heard that some of the new member states, such as Lithuania, are considering developing a traffic light scrutiny system so that, on receipt of the documents, they are sifted through and placed in one of three categories. A red traffic light would mean that Parliament is required to produce a mandate to the Minister about the measure. An amber light would require the Minister to consult Parliament before going to negotiate. A green light would mean that the matter is of little interest to the Parliament and that the Minister should get on with the job.
Why do I have such a keen interest in the subject at present? I am pleased to be a member of the House of Commons Modernisation Committee, which is conducting an inquiry on the future scrutiny of European legislation by the House. I am hopeful that the inquiry and the resulting report will provide a catalyst for changes that improve the scrutiny of European legislation. As part of our inquiry, I know that the Leader of the House has produced a memorandum on his proposals for improvements to the system of scrutiny. It is available for all Members to read. There have been a number of responses to that memorandum: a particularly important one is from the European Scrutiny Committee; others have come from many other parts of both Houses and from outside 397WH bodies, including the Corporation of London, the British Bankers Association and the Confederation of British Industry.
That is a useful way of bringing me back to why I took an interest in the subject of today's debate—the story during the summer recess that Digby Jones of the CBI was complaining to the media that Parliament is asleep on the job of scrutiny of European legislation. That accusation is insulting and false, and it should be firmly rejected, but it is fair to say that there is merit in calling on us to bring some of the scrutiny of European legislation in to the mainstream of the work that we do in Parliament, and by so doing into the public's consciousness. It is valuable for us to be stirred into action to prevent the gold-plating of domestic legislation implementing European laws.
The second incident of the summer that stirred me into action was the call of the Conservative party for the European Scrutiny Committee to meet in public when it is carrying out its consideration of European documents. It is fair to say that the European Scrutiny Committee is, as ever, in the lead. In December last year, the Committee wrote to the Leader of the House asking for an amendment to Standing Orders to permit the Committee to meet in public when it is deliberating. What the Conservatives are doing is drawing to our attention that the Leader of the House is yet to make a decision on that request.
The Leader of the House's memorandum has some important proposals in it, which require a good deal of consideration by the House of Commons. The first and most important one is a new forum building on the Standing Committees on the Convention and on the Intergovernmental Conference. The forum would provide for Members of both Houses to meet Government Ministers, and perhaps members of the European Commission and the European Parliament, to deal with questions and debates on matters of importance to the European Union and its relations with this country at a more general level. Some of the subjects that could be considered at such a forum are the White Papers that our Government produce, usually twice a year, about their position on negotiations in the Council and with European Ministers, and the Commission's annual legislative and work programme. Those are, I think, suitable subjects where there is much to be discussed and enough for individual Members' interests to be captured. Such an event would attract a lot of attention from parliamentarians, from the media and, I hope, from the public.
The question of who controls the agenda would be important if we were to set up such meetings. Should arranging a meeting and establishing an agenda be in the gift of the Government or of the House of Commons? I favour the latter. More generally, I would like to see a business management committee that controls the agenda of Parliament itself. Failing that, the European Scrutiny Committee asked that it be able at least to propose subjects for meetings of the new forum, and I support its request.
The other matter in the memorandum from the Leader of the House to which I would like to draw attention is the subsidiarity early warning mechanism. For those who complain that the draft treaty for the 398WH European constitution is bad news, that is one of the best pieces of good news in the document. One of the protocols to the treaty—I found it on page 111 of the Government's provisional text of the constitutional treaty for the European Union, Cmnd. 6289—sets out the arrangements whereby each national Parliament has a period of six weeks from the date of transmission of a draft European legislative Act to send to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a reasoned opinion why the draft in question does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. If one third of the national Parliaments' votes on an issue raise a similar objection about an offence against subsidiarity, the Commission must take back the proposal and consider whether to scrap it, amend it or try to force it through. Sceptics will say, "All it need do is wait and send it back out," but the protocol allows the European Court to adjudicate whether the reasoned objection was right or wrong.
That new and important process would enhance our scrutiny, but we would have only a six-week period in which to make our reasoned objection. The Leader of the House makes some comments about how we can effectively use those six weeks to come up with our reasoned objection, and the European Scrutiny Committee has also commented on how that can be done. If we get the process right, we will see an improvement in scrutiny—as long as we ratify the treaty and the new constitution comes into effect, of course.
I do not want to eat into the Minister's time, but I have my own suggestions for improving scrutiny. First, with a pre-scrutiny model, we must give more attention to making Ministers appear before MPs before they attend Council meetings in Brussels. Secondly, and importantly, we must enhance our scrutiny of the measures that we take to implement European legislation in order to prevent gold-plating. Thirdly, as a minor procedural point but an important one for winning hearts and minds, the European Scrutiny Committee should meet in public when it deliberates documents. Fourthly, we should improve relations with Members of the European Parliament and build on the work of the European Scrutiny Committee. The UK's representatives in that Parliament have a great wealth of knowledge, and they can assist us in our work and vice versa. Fifthly, we should treat European legislation not as a part of foreign policy but as domestic policy.
If we were to get the culture right, European legislation would simply be a matter of domestic legislation: the rest would fall into place. MPs would be enthusiastic and discharge their responsibility for proper and effective scrutiny well, the media would report on European laws more consistently and more accurately, and the public would have far less to fear from laws from Brussels. I hope that my suggestions are helpful to the Minister. I will now shut up so that he can respond.
§ The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on securing this debate and raising important issues. People who follow the way in which scrutiny is carried out and the relationship between the legislative and the executive in the United Kingdom and throughout Europe will read 399WH the points that he raised in this debate. In future years they will look back and see that his speech contained a lot of common sense and ask why we did we not see that before. I genuinely congratulate him on raising the issue. He spoke with knowledge, clarity and foresight.
For the record, my hon. Friend is, as he said, a member of the Modernisation Committee, which is holding an inquiry into this issue. His points will be well noted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and will form part of his deliberations and those of the Committee.
I shall explain the big picture of Government policy, then move on to some of the details. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the Government are keen to enhance the way in which Parliament engages with European matters and hope that the Modernisation Committee will find consensus. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House have made statements to the House about the issue in recent months. We believe that greater scrutiny of European legislation by this House and the other place is the main way in which to engage the British public with the European Union institutions in a more productive and informed fashion. That requires us to get scrutiny right.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House submitted a memorandum to the Modernisation Committee in March—it is available on the website—and strongly argued the case for change. It would be wrong of me to respond in detail to some of the points that have been made, because they are for the deliberation of the Committee, but I shall try to cover some today.
The memorandum acknowledges, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, that there is much good in what we already do: the European Scrutiny Committee's efficient sifting of the large number of European documents coming before it and alerting the House to those of significance; the corresponding detailed scrutiny carried out by the European Union Committee in the House of Lords; and the work done by the Foreign Affairs Committee and the other departmental Select Committees on European matters. We should be proud of the scrutiny reserve, whereby the Government have undertaken in all but special cases not to agree to European proposals until the House has completed its scrutiny.
However, it must be admitted that the commendable work that is done does not attract widespread interest in the House and beyond. European scrutiny is, sadly, something of a minority interest, even in Parliament, despite the importance of the legislation that is scrutinised. In addition, the work that is done fails to attract the interest of the media or engage the public. As the Government's memorandum to the Modernisation Committee states,
There is a worrying and widening gap between our citizens and the institutions of the European Union; and this is not good for our democracy.We must take steps to engage the public in debate on European matters. European issues should be in the mainstream of our political life—as my hon. Friend said, they are not foreign policies and foreign affairs. The often-heard phrase "When I'm in Europe", ignores the fact that we in the United Kingdom are in Europe all the time.400WH We must take steps to ensure that Parliament's scrutiny work is done to better effect, and we must respond to the new challenges that arise from the new constitutional treaty. The treaty greatly strengthens the role of national Parliaments—that is one of its main purposes. The Government negotiated hard for that at the Convention and at the intergovernmental conference. The subsidiarity early warning mechanism—the yellow card—is also a substantial advance, and we are grateful to the European Scrutiny Committee and to the European Union Committee for their detailed consideration of how that mechanism can best be implemented. We hope that the Modernisation Committee will take into account the views of those Committees.
The memorandum also sets out in detail the Government's proposals for a joint European grand committee as a successor to the Standing Committees on the Convention and on the intergovernmental conference. I acknowledge that some Members, particularly those of the other House, were not immediately persuaded that a new Committee would add value to our existing structures. The Government believe that it would be of considerable benefit to have a forum in which both Houses could come together to debate European matters and to question Ministers. We also hope that ways will be found to allow European Commissioners to make statements and answer questions before the new body, and perhaps for UK MEPs to attend. I suspect that if that were the case, it would attract widespread interest from the media.
We recognise that those last proposals would require some procedural innovation. If the proposals find favour with the Modernisation Committee, it will be for the House to decide whether to pursue them. In researching the matter, my hon. Friend might have read about the precedent of the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform, which adopted such procedures in 1933. Once again we learn that in this place there is nothing new.
The memorandum considers the time that is currently allocated to European matters on the Floor of the House and asks the Modernisation Committee to consider whether it continues to be appropriate. It also considers the potential for cross-cutting questions on European matters in Westminster Hall, and sets out several options for reform of the European scrutiny system, which range from abolishing the European Standing Committee system and replacing it with scrutiny by Select Committees, to more modest reform. In large part, the memorandum was intended to provoke debate, and it has succeeded in doing so. Again, let me say that I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. From the evidence that the Modernisation Committee has published to date, it seems that there may be more support for more modest reform, but we await the Committee's conclusions.
The Government's memorandum also invites the Modernisation Committee to consider whether more should be done to encourage Members to engage more fully in the European policy debate. We welcome the increasing joint working between Committees of this House and those of the European Parliament and other national Parliaments. The Modernisation Committee's inquiry naturally focuses on scrutiny of European matters in this House, but we should not forget the role 401WH of the House of Lords. As has been said, its European Union Committee is highly respected—perhaps more so than the House of Commons' Committee—for its expertise and detailed scrutiny work. It is essential that any changes that we make in this House complement, rather than duplicate, its work.
Meeting and deliberating in public is a matter on which the Government have yet to take a view. It would be a significant change to our procedures. As everyone knows, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is sympathetic to the principle of greater accessibility and has sought the views of the Liaison Committee and the Procedure Committee on such matters. We hope that the Modernisation Committee will be able to come to a conclusion on them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford also discussed control of the agenda, subsidiarity early warning and how we deal with that, and pre-scrutiny and enhanced scrutiny designed to prevent gold-plating. Those suggestions and the others that he made are very strong, and I welcome his contribution to the debate. In conclusion, I thank him for initiating this discussion. The Government and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in particular attach considerable importance to parliamentary scrutiny of European matters, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will make a very positive contribution to future debate.
§ Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.