2 A new Joint European Grand Committee
THE GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSAL
5. As the Foreign Secretary announced in his Statement
to the House on 11 February, the Government favours establishing
a new Committee, as a successor to the Standing Committee on the
Convention and that on the IGC, whose remit would cover the whole
of the EU's work. Our aim is that the new Committee would be open
to Members of both Houses; and that Ministers involved in EU work,
from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and from other Departments,
would make statements, respond to questions and participate in
debates. We also hope that ways might be found to allow European
Commissioners to make statements and answer questions before the
new body, and perhaps for UK Members of the European Parliament
to attend.
6. This proposal has been widely welcomed in both
Houses. Naturally, Members have asked for clarification about
the Committee's role and the value it would add to Parliament's
monitoring of EU matters, and in particular for reassurance that
it would not undermine the existing scrutiny mechanisms. Members
of the House of Lords have expressed a strong preference for the
Committee to be a truly Joint Committee, rather than a Commons
Committee with Lords participation, and for their House to be
fully involved in consultation on the proposal. The Government
hopes that the Modernisation Committee will consult with the Lords
Procedure Committee when considering this matter.
MEMBERSHIP
7. The Government suggests that the Committee should
be open to all Members of both Houses. It could have a core membership,
as did the Standing Committee on the Convention and the IGC, with
other Members able to participate. Alternatively—and
this may be simpler given the involvement of both Houses—its
membership could consist of all members of both Houses, along
the lines of the Commons Grand Committees. While it is to be hoped
that the new Committee will attract considerable interest, it
may be wise, in view of the difficulties experienced in maintaining
a quorum by the Standing Committee on the Convention and to a
lesser extent by the Standing Committee on the IGC, to set a modest
quorum: perhaps three from each House, in line with the quorum
for Westminster Hall.
8. The Government hopes that ways might be found
to allow UK Members of the European Parliament to attend the new
Committee. It understands that work currently being done by House
officials suggests that the procedural barriers to including non-Members
in formal Committee proceedings are not insuperable. Indeed there
is a precedent for a Committee co-opting outsiders: the Joint
Committee on Indian Constitutional Affairs in 1933 was given power
to "call into consultation representatives of the Indian
States and of British India". The Modernisation Committee
may wish to consult the Procedure Committees of both Houses on
this point.
9. The Government strongly believes that closer co-operation
between Members and UK MEPs would be beneficial to the UK. The
participation of UK MEPs in the meetings of the new Committee
would both bring a European perspective to its debates and help
to ensure that MEPs are aware of the views of UK parliamentarians.
10. The Government hopes that it will be possible
for the new Committee to accommodate statements by, and questions
to, European Commissioners or perhaps other senior EU officials
or representatives of the European Parliament or other European
institution. It believes this would be a significant advance in
accountability, and a considerable attraction to Members, media
and the public. The Government envisages that it would be responsible
for issuing invitations to Commissioners, as appropriate and following
discussion with the usual channels; the Committee would not have
a Select Committee's power to summon witnesses. The status of
the Commissioners would be procedurally novel: they would not
be members of the Committee, nor witnesses as before a Select
Committee. The Modernisation Committee might therefore like
to consult the Procedure Committees of both Houses on this matter.
PROCEEDINGS
11. The Government envisages that the new Committee
would follow the pattern of proceedings adopted for the Standing
Committee on the IGC. It would begin with statements from, and
questions to, Ministers, or Commissioners as discussed above.
The Ministers might be from the FCO or from other Departments
engaged in EU work. There would follow a debate. The Government
anticipates that this debate would be on the adjournment; it sees
no need for provision for substantive motions. And we think it
would be important that, as in Westminster Hall, there should
be no voting.
12. The Government envisages that meetings of the
Committee would be called by Government motions in both Houses,
following discussions in the usual channels. How frequently the
Committee should meet would be for discussion. The Government
does not envisage that it should meet very frequently, or replace
existing fora for debate on European matters. Roughly quarterly
meetings might be appropriate: to discuss the Foreign Secretary's
White Papers in January and in July, and other matters as need
arose. The subject for debate would be proposed in the Government
motion, but it would be open to others (for example, the Scrutiny
Committees) to suggest topics.
13. The new Committee could meet in Committee Room
14, as did the Standing Committees on the Convention and the IGC,
or perhaps in Westminster Hall. The timing of its meetings would
be for discussion between the Houses, and would need to be considered
in the light of the wider debate on the sitting hours of the House.
The length of the meetings would be for discussion. Two and a
half hours, as for the Standing Committee on the IGC, might be
a good starting point, perhaps with facility for meeting longer
if attendance were anticipated to be high. It would probably be
necessary to provide for "injury time" for divisions
in either House. Alternatively, it might be possible to schedule
meetings for when one or both Houses were not sitting.
NAME
14. The name of the Committee would be for consideration
in the light of decisions on its form and composition. If membership
is unrestricted, "the European Grand Committee" or "the
Joint European Grand Committee" might be thought appropriate,
and suitably imposing. However, the term "Grand Committee"
has a somewhat different meaning in the Lords and might create
confusion there. The Modernisation Committee might like to
consult the Lords Procedure Committee for their views on what
name would be appropriate.
| 
