House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Jun 1990

Mr. Ridley : Car workers in the west midlands and the hon. Gentleman's constituency will be only too grateful that they have good, secure jobs in an expanding, successful company, and are not at risk from a state aid directive stopping us pumping money into a bankrupt nationalised enterprise.

Sir Hal Miller (Bromsgrove) : Will my right hon. Friend confirm the facts of the case, which are that Rover was successfully sold to a British company when there were no other applicants and the Opposition had objected to a previous suggestion that Ford and General Motors might take over responsibility for the company ; the taxpayer was relieved of the burden of guarantees to £1.4 billion and of the necessity of undertaking an investment programme of £1 billion, which would now, no doubt, have had to be repaid ; there was then a considerable risk that the two new models would not be the successes that they were ; and there was a heavy, overhanging liability for the redundancy payments for the work force? Therefore, we should all be pleased that the matter is a success, instead of indulging in conspiracy theories, muckraking and the denigration of a successful British company and successful British workers.

Mr. Ridley : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I remind the House of the words of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on 4 May 1988, when he was the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry :

"If we are really concerned about the future of the Rover Group and volume car manufacturing in this country under British ownership and control we need the commitment of an owner who is willing to make the long-term investment that is required. We need an appreciation by the owner of the long-term importance of the industry to the British economy. We need pride of ownership."--[ Official Report, 5 May 1988 ; Vol. 132, c. 941.]

We have achieved that as a result of the BAe deal, but the Labour party is now carping, criticising and wishing it had never happened.

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : Is not the crucial and central point of the decision that has been handed down that the Government behaved illegally? In so far as

Column 515

they did so, why on earth has the Secretary of State come here today without having checked on the legal advice given to his predecessor? While we accept that he is not allowed to see advice given to a previous Government, surely if he is coming to answer questions in the House on illegal conduct by Her Majesty's Government, he should at least have checked the records to find out how the decision was arrived at.

Mr. Ridley : No such question arises. The Government have decided to accept the Commission's report for the reasons that I have given. There is no point in the right hon. Member trying to prove something of that sort. We ultimately made our decision in the way that I have described.

Mr. Paul Channon (Southend, West) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that what really matters in this case is that we have a prosperous, efficient, car industry in this country in which people have good jobs? Does he agree that, in the past, the Opposition have sabotaged any effort made to try to put the company on a profitable footing? Does he also agree that the British taxpayer has poured billions of pounds into that company and was liable to pour in even more billions of pounds, and the solution that he and his predecessors adopted not only saved the taxpayer a great deal of money, but provided a prosperous car industry for this country in future?

Mr. Ridley : My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and I applaud his part in the final outcome when he had the job that I now hold. This is what the whole House said that it wanted in May 1988, but now that we have actually got it, the Opposition appear to have changed their mind and want to go back to the old bad days.

Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North) : Will the Secretary of State stop attempting to defend and whitewash the Government's actions in their attempts to deceive the House, the European Commission and the general public by hiding the sweeteners given to British Aerospace--efforts of which the Prime Minister was aware? Instead, will he thank and support the vigilance of the Comptroller and Auditor General in unearthing this deception? Will he take his responsibility for the setting up of the slush fund and resign, along with the Prime Minister?

Mr. Ridley : I assure the hon. Gentleman that to the last of my days I shall continue to defend the Government and attack the rabble on the Opposition Benches. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point, we made a full report to the Comptroller and Auditor General, which he passed on to the Public Accounts Committee. The House was fully informed because, from that process, publication was made--I am not saying by whom--which was the right way to carry out the procedure.

Mr. Michael Grylls (Surrey, North-West) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that most sensible people in the House and outside will observe that, after months of study by the Commission, there has been no criticism whatever of the price at which this company was sold to British Aerospace? Synthetic opposition is voiced by Labour Members simply because they cannot bear to see that the company has been successfully privatised and is

Column 516

prospering. Jobs are very much safer and productivity has improved. It has become a highly profitable British-owned motor car firm, and we should be proud of that.

Mr. Ridley : The force of my hon. Friend's arguments has driven the Leader of the Opposition from the Chamber because he could not take any more. Opposition Members are looking as glum as can be, and the Leader of the Opposition, who should be leading from the front, is not about. My hon. Friend is right. Political point scoring is more important to the Labour party than the successful future of the Rover group.

Mr. Stan Crowther (Rotherham) : It would be in everybody's interest for the Government to drop their policy of subterfuge and cover-up. How can the Secretary of State pretend that all the facts were made known at the time, when it is perfectly obvious that, if they had been fully reported to the House and the Commission there would have been no need for the second Commission inquiry or the second inquiry by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry which hopes to report shortly? How can he pretend that the facts were made known, when it is perfectly obvious that they were hidden?

Mr. Ridley : I resent the use of the word subterfuge. On behalf of the Government I have accepted the Commission's report. I have not heard the Opposition or the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) say that they accept it. The scandalous charges that he has been making should now be withdrawn.

Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West) : The Commission has quite clearly found that British Aerospace received no special tax treatment and that Rover Group was not overvalued. In view of that, will my right hon. Friend once again invite the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East to withdraw his wild and irresponsible remarks? If the hon. Gentleman is not big enough to do that, will my right hon. Friend put that crazy correspondence in the Library so that the House can judge the credibility of the Opposition's attack?

Mr. Ridley : My hon. Friend is right. I repeat the invitation to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his allegations. I have already put in the Library all the correspondence with the Inland Revenue and the House has seen it. I shall certainly place in the Library my correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, and the House can judge him as well.

Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough) : The Opposition are simply trying to hold the Government accountable. For once it would be nice for the Secretary of State to come to the House and accept responsibility for a Cabinet decision. Does he agree that the Commission, rather than the British Government, has had to defend the British taxpayer? According to the Secretary of State's own figures, £33.4 million, £9.5 million and £1.5 million have to be repaid. That is a total of £44.4 million. He says that the Government will implement the Commission's decision. When and how will they collect the money, and when will they stop wriggling on this specific matter?

Mr. Ridley : I am in the House accepting responsibility on behalf of the Government. We are discharging our obligation to tell the House what the Commission has decided and what the Government have decided to do in response. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the taxpayer

Column 517

is protected by this decision of the Commission, without paying any heed to the £3.5 billion of taxpayers' money which went down the drain before this deal was ever done, he has another think coming.

Dr. Keith Hampson (Leeds, North-West) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that two critical aspects of the matter have been ignored by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East? First, two years ago under a different Commissioner, it was not at all clear that the deferment of the purchase price, which is by far the largest element in the extra package, would be categorised as state aid. Secondly, at the heart of the matter is the fact that in early July two years ago it was by no means certain that the British Aerospace board was united in wanting to take on this huge loss- making operation with staggering liabilities. Without the extra £30 million package British Aerospace would not have bought Rover and it would not now be British and as successful as it has become.

Mr. Ridley : I have accepted the Commission's decision about the nature of the benefit that arose from deferring the interest on the £150 million for 20 months. However, I question whether it is right that the benefit to British Aerospace of that deferment, which was about £22 million, should result in that company being asked to repay £33 million. That seems to be a point which we can legitimately raise. My hon. Friend is right when he says that there was considerable reluctance on the part of British Aerospace to proceed at all. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said in the House that he thought that it was a rotten deal for British Aerospace shareholders, and many City commentators suggested at the time that the shares should be marked down.

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) : Can the Secretary of State give the House a categorical assurance that neither these nor similar arrangements applied in any other privatisation deal?

Mr. Ridley : I cannot quite understand how the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is something here which is different in relation to any other privatisation. I think that each case has to be taken on its merits and I am very happy to defend this privatisation as one of the most successful launches of a new motor company that we have seen for a long time.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton) : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the most important considerations in the Government's mind must have been the preservation of the sales network of Rover Group dealers in the United Kingdom and abroad? Is he aware that, when the Trade and Industry Committee looked at the collapse of the Rootes motor group, which was rescued by Chrysler, the evidence given by the dealers to the Committee was that the whole sales network was collapsing hour by hour because of the uncertainty? Does he agree that there was a severe risk to the whole future of the Rover group if the quickest possible reasonable sale had not been consummated?

Mr. Ridley : My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. It is crucial to the on-going success of a motor company for the dealer network to remain intact and loyal. The continued uncertainty, much of which was caused by the Opposition making a tremendous fuss about any possible

Column 518

purchaser for Rover Group, had made the dealer network rather jittery. That was the reason for the urgency in July 1988.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : The Attorney-General has been sitting stony-faced throughout the statement. Will the Secretary of State confer with him and obtain confirmation that the Prime Minister and Lord Young were told that this deal was unlawful?

Mr. Ridley : I would never dream of accusing the hon. Gentleman of being stony-faced. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is the soul of delightful company and wit--when he is not taking his responsibilities very seriously, as of course he is now. He is completely satisfied with my statement and what I have told the House, and I have nothing further to add about the legal advice received by my predecessor.

Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock) : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Commissioner Millan, a former Labour Member, voted against the Commission's recommendation on the basis that he wanted its action to be even harsher? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be outrageous if he did that in an attempt to gain party political advantage? Does he further agree that Commissioner Millan may well have been put up to it by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East?

Mr. Ridley : I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East will respond to that point. We have had a remarkable silence from him about his rather unsavoury part in these affairs and I hope that he will respond to my hon. Friend. I think that it is true that the only Commissioner who voted against the recommendation in the hope of achieving a tougher settlement against British Aerospace was Commissioner Millan.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Is it not true that many people believe that the Secretary of State has got off extremely lightly with a helpful report from the former Tory Minister Leon Brittan, who was himself severely criticised by a Select Committee for his duplicity? Will the Secretary of State now confirm clearly that he, Lord Young and the Prime Minister received information that the rip-off of hundreds of millions of pounds from the taxpayer was illegal?

Mr. Ridley : The hon. Gentleman's last statement is absolutely untrue. I must rebut that entirely. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in his first point as well.

Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle) : Is not the kernel of the matter the fact that the amount now demanded by the Commissioners confirms their judgment that the assets sold were not undervalued?

Mr. Ridley : Yes, that is an important point. It is not just that the Commissioners felt that they could not reopen the decision of Commissioner Sutherland ; it was on the merits of the case as set out in their letter that they came to the conclusion that the valuation which my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Young accepted with British Aerospace at the time was correct. We are still looking for a withdrawal from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East of his statement only eight days ago in the House to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Industry that there was a gross undervaluation. It is time that he withdrew that.

Column 519

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : If there was no deception, why does the letter that I have here, signed by Lord Young, show a deception in relation to repayment and notional interest rates saved? Is it fair that a company valued by Nikki Securities of Japan at £1,000 million today should have been sold for only £150 million a couple of years ago?

Mr. Ridley : The hon. Gentleman puts his own interpretation on things. I prefer to believe what the Commission said. It is probably more impartial and has more sense than the hon. Gentleman. I am happy to see what the Commission says about valuation and I, too, am prepared to accept that.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. In view of the importance of the next debate, in which some hon. Members who are now rising are anxious to participate, I shall call three more Conservative Members and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and then we must move on.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his relaxed demeanour in the face of this synthetic little storm in a Dunfermline teacup. It is now obvious that the Government took the right decision to stand by Rover and obtain a good deal for the British taxpayer and preserve jobs, and are also probably right reluctantly to abide by the Commission's ruling. But on that point does my right hon. Friend share my cynical view that the so-called level playing field in European competition rulings is full of political lumps, and that he might not have been asked to repay £40 million if Renault had not been asked to repay £1.2 billion some months ago, which it has not yet done?

Mr. Ridley : I agree with my hon. Friend about the Dunfermline teacup. We were promised a firebrand, an effective Opposition spokesman, in the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, but I am afraid that he has proved a great disappointment. We wish that he could sometimes put some good points for us to answer. In fact, he sits on his bottom and does nothing most of the time.

On the serious point made by my hon. Friend, it is a little disturbing that there have been rumours in the newspapers of the matter being treated by the Commission as some sort of political punishment which is negotiable. My concept of state aid is that it should be a precise calculation and that that alone should be what it asks to be repaid.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle) : Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr.

Campbell-Savours), have not some people forgotten that at the time people said that the Varley-Marshall guarantees of more than £1.6 billion were an enormous albatross round the neck of Rover? Indeed, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) asked the House whether it was true that institutional shareholders had already been telephoning to express their objections. People forget such things now. Will not most reasonable taxpayers come to the conclusion that they have had a

Column 520

good deal? The Government have offloaded a loss-making, ramshackle organisation which was sending £1.6 billion down the pan and now have a profitable British company.

Mr. Ridley : My hon. Friend is right, but it does not seem to matter how successful the Government's economic and industrial strategy is, Opposition Members simply want to find party political points to make against us.

Mr. Andrew MacKay (Berkshire, East) : May I bring my right hon. Friend's mind back to the role of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) ? Is not it right that the Commission has clearly reported that there was no special tax treatment for British Aerospace and that there was no undervaluation of Rover for British Aerospace? In the circumstances, when we continually ask the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East to withdraw the allegations that have now been proved to be false, why does the hon. Gentleman not do so? Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on his motives?

Mr. Ridley : I endorse every word of my hon. Friend's question. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East may wish to--

Mr. Gordon Brown : Answer the question. What has the Commission said about the tax concession?

Mr. Ridley : No, my hon. Friend asked me to speculate on the hon. Gentleman's motives for not coming forward and making a clean breast of the fact that he has got it wrong. I could do that, but, although I have not found the hon. Gentleman very damaging these past two months, I have developed a certain affection for him, so I will not press the point.

Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North) : Of the many questions which still remain unanswered, will the Secretary of State give a clear answer to two? First, will he confirm that the European Commission has demanded further written information on the tax concessions given to British Aerospace? Secondly, when the Secretary of State puts correspondence in the Library, will he include with it the legal advice that was given to Lord Young and the Prime Minister?

Mr. Ridley : I am afraid that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has not responded to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay). He seems to be completely unable to speak.

I am delighted to answer the two questions put by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). He has my assurance that all documents on the matter that are not normally kept confidential will be placed in the Library. Documents between the British Government and the Commission are treated as documents between two Governments and are not normally released, but the hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty in obtaining any information that he wants. I can give him an assurance that we have no difficulty whatever in answering the points about the tax treatments, which are mainly, I think, due to the Commission's failure to understand how the system works.

Column 521

Points of Order

5.29 pm

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montomery) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I think that I called both hon. Members. What is the point of order? I call Mr. Nellist first.

Mr. Nellist : Given the specific questions asked by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and as the Attorney-General is still present in the Chamber, will you, Mr. Speaker, confirm that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman were to approach you now to be allowed to make a statement about the legal advice given to Lord Young, you would allow him to make one?

Mr. Speaker : I have received no notification that the Attorney- General wishes to do that.

Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I may inadvertently have misled the House, and if so I want to correct myself. At one stage during Question Time, I alluded to a rather nefarious contract negotiated by Middlesbrough council. I suggested that a Middlesbrough councillor was on the board of the new company concerned. I was mistaken. It was a Cleveland county councillor.

Mr. Speaker : I am not sure whether that is a point of order for me.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a rule, regarding the tabling of questions, that matters relating to internal Government administration are not answerable. Will you, Mr. Speaker, confirm that legal advice given by the Attorney-General to a Minister on an important issue of public policy, such as the sale of British Leyland, does not fall into that category,

Column 522

and that questions about that aspect put to the Attorney-General and to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are answerable?

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I recollect that, when the then Mr. Sam Silkin was Attorney-General, he not only refused to tell the Trade and Industry Committee what advice he had given but refused to attend the Committee to give it legal advice, saying that it was the established custom of the House to refuse both such requests.

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who is an expert on such matters, has given the House an answer to the question of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General is still in the Chamber, and you were asked to approach him with a view to allowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make a statement. The point was made by several right hon. and hon. Members that the Attorney-General should come clean. It is clear that he knows more, and he should be given the option of making a statement now on the legal advice that he tendered to the Prime Minister, Lord Young or anyone else as to the illegality of the Rover deal.

Mr. Speaker : The whole House knows that that is not a matter for me. Furthermore, there is ahead of us an important debate for which the whole House has been waiting for a long time. I shall take one more point of order.

Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : No. I am not taking another point of order from the hon. Member.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, in respect of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill, the Solicitor-General was required to attend the Committee to give it advice relating to internal workings and to explain the advice that had been given to Ministers?

Mr. Speaker : Perhaps that matter would more appropriately be the subject of a question from the hon. Member for a future Question Time.

Column 523

European Legislation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Chapman.]

[Relevant documents : Fourth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, Session 1988-89, on the Scrutiny of European Legislation (HC 622, Vols. I and II) and the Government response (Cm. 1081) ; First Special Report from the Select Committee on European Legislation Session 1989-90, on the Scrutiny of European Legislation (HC 512)]

Mr. Speaker : A large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in this debate. I hope that it will be possible to accommodate them all, so I ask for brief contributions.

5.32 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe) : The Order Paper identifies as relevantto the debate the fourth report from the Select Committee on Procedure, and the Government's response to it. Both are important and constructive contributions to a continuing debate about how to improve the input of national Parliaments--in this case the House--to the formulation of European Community legislation as adopted by the Council of Ministers.

The Council, composed of Ministers drawn from national Governments, is of course the principal law-making body of the Community, so it is important that those Ministers should be fully sensitised to the views and interests of national Parliaments. Hence our belief that the House should be given the best means reasonably possible to achieve that. The Government's response to the Procedure committee's report is meant in that spirit.

This afternoon's report by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the outcome of the Dublin European council emphasised the degree to which the EC is embarked upon a period of dynamic change. It involves the strengthening of Community institutions, the evolution of some form of European monetary union--stage 1 of which begins this Sunday, 1 July--and the completion of the single market by the end of 1992. The Community has to cope, too, with a challenging series of external issues, ranging from the unification of Germany, to the successful completion of the Uruguay round.

Taken together, these simultaneous challenges amount to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has called the labours of Hercules. So we are quite naturally committed as well to a more effective, more democratic Community whose institutions are well adjusted to cope with the challenges of change.

Against that backdrop, we welcome the opportunity that the Procedure Committee report offered to review the participation of the House, through its relationship with Ministers, in the law-making process of the Community. We have witnessed during recent months a growing interest in the role of national Parliaments in that process, linked to the more general debate about possible institutional reform, which will now carry through to the intergovernmental conferences that will begin in Rome in December.

In stressing the role of national Parliaments vis-a-vis the Council, I do not underestimate the real and growing significance of the European Parliament. But we should

Column 524

view the two Parliaments as complements, not competitors, in the process of enhancing democratic accountability within the Community. The European Parliament has a valuable part to play in suggesting amendments to the Council. Our proposals for institutional reform also suggest that it should play an enhanced role in holding the Commission to account, in overseeing its administration of agreed Community policy and helping to ensure proper financial accountability.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South) : My right hon. and learned Friend speaks of the enhanced role that he sees for the European Parliament, yet one of the most vital roles that this Parliament has to play in scrutinising legislation depends on Ministers giving accurate information to right hon. and hon. Members. On 23 April 1986, my right hon. and learned Friend told the House that he derided as "children with fantasies"--I think was the phrase he used--those who feared the European Parliament, the European Court, and other European institutions taking increased powers. All the ridicule that flowed from my right hon. and learned Friend on that occasion has proved to be totally and utterly wrong. When it comes to the question of scrutiny, it is vital that the House is given accurate information from the Dispatch Box.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : The essential and most accurate information that is the foundation of comprehension here is given in a written answer in today's Hansard by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, which sets out clearly the extent to which, for example, the issues arising from the case reported last week flow directly from the European Communities Act 1972, which itself implements article 5 of the treaty in that respect, which was not significantly altered by the Single European Act. All those matters flow from the decision by Parliament at that time and from the development of European Community law as part of the directly applicable law in this country.

The systems for national parliamentary scrutiny of draft EC law that we already have in this House and in another place are often cited as models from which other national Parliaments can learn. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) is right to want them improved still further, and this debate is designed to achieve just that.

Dr. Keith Hampson (Leeds, North-West) : May I emphasise that many of us who are pro-European Community believe that national Parliaments are of premier concern rather than the growth of the European Parliament, and that the best way of ensuring that the views of national Parliaments are communicated to the European Parliament would be some form of second chamber, such as exists in Germany and Sweden? It is a long tradition in Europe that the individual constituent's interests are reflected in a second chamber. National Parliaments could have direct representation in the European Parliament in that way.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the current process does not mark the end of his thinking and that he will consider in the intergovernmental conferences to come a major institutional switch of the kind that I described?

Column 525

Sir Geoffrey Howe : That is a broader question, which I have no doubt that my hon. Friend can develop in his own speech, if he is lucky enough to catch the Chair's eye. I must today deal with the procedures of this House.

On anyone's analysis it is important that this House should be as well equipped as possible to focus on new issues of concern to the United Kingdom as they arise in the Community, so that the Government can take proper account of the views of the House in negotiations leading up to legislative decisions by the Council of Ministers. That is the essence of what we have come to call parliamentary scrutiny. It does not of course mean--this is common ground on both sides of the House--that the United Kingdom's views will necessarily prevail in those deliberations. The widespread use of majority voting inevitably means that the United Kingdom will sometimes find itself in the minority, but the best way to influence the course of negotiations, and so secure the best result for the United Kingdom, is to have clear objectives from an early stage. Parliamentary scrutiny of the intentions and objectives of the Ministers concerned makes a crucial contribution to that process.

The present procedures were designed by a Committee under the chairmanship of our former colleague as Member for Northwich, the late Sir John Foster, in 1973. Although they were reviewed in 1978 by the Select Committee on Procedure, they have remained largely unchanged since our accession to the Community. However, with the adoption of the Single European Act in 1986, and the subsequent enactment by Parliament of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, it was clearly timely for the Procedure Committee to examine the options for bringing the scrutiny process up to date. The Government, indeed the whole House, are therefore most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his Committee for this timely, thorough and well judged report. I shall draw attention to three or four of its key findings.

First, and perhaps surprisingly, the report notes in paragraphs 11 and 12 that neither the volume of European documents coming before the House, nor the number recommended for debate, has risen significantly in recent years. That puts in perspective any suggestion that we are being overwhelmed by a rising tide of documents from Brussels.

Secondly, the report found in paragraph 15 that the adoption, before completion of the scrutiny process, of proposals designated as legally or politically important was comparatively unusual. In 1988-89 there were no such occasions, and there have been only two so far this Session, both of which involved urgent measures for aid to Poland and Hungary. So debates are normally being held in time to influence the United Kingdom's negotiating objectives at the relevant meeting of the Council of Ministers.

Thirdly, the report contains the following important conclusion in paragraph 116 :

"The notion that the House of Commons lags behind other EEC Parliaments in the effectveness of its scrutiny machinery was not corroborated in any of the evidence we received and, indeed, was contradicted by a number of authoritative witnesses."

That is encouraging. Several other member states have been examining our system with a view to strengthening their own procedures. But of course we must not be complacent in this respect.

Next Section

Home Page