| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.21 pm
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab):
I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate, as it is on a subject in which I have a considerable interest. I am pleased too that the measure under discussion is an interim provision and that we will be able to look
further at how we scrutinise European legislation and documentation in the future.
I became a member of the ESC a few months ago. I much enjoy the work and take a great interest in it, but for eight years I was a permanent member of European Standing Committee B, so I speak on these matters with some experience.
The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has left the Chamber, but I hope that the remaining Opposition Members will accept that, when I say that European scrutiny should continue to be conducted in private, I am not trying to be secretive and to prevent the public from knowing what we do. Instead, my concern is to provide a space in which our advisers are able to speak freely and frankly to us. If we were to meet in public, my fear is that they would feel constrained and that they had to be much more reserved. Indeed, they might even believe that they had to resort to supplying written documentation rather than speaking to us, because there is no doubt that being reported on television and in the press would turn them into public figures.
That would not be right. They are very much our advisers: they are not part of the cat’s paw of Government and they give us honest advice that I have found to be very valuable. It is refreshing because it is so direct. Although I do not always agree with it, we all know that the Government are not trying to control us by means of the advice that we are given. That is the point that I want to make about secrecy.
Three and a half years ago, I made a written submission about European scrutiny to the Modernisation Committee. I had forgotten about it, but I found it today and read it through. Much to my surprise, I discovered that, even now, I agree with what I wrote then.
I agree with much of what has been said in the Chamber this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) is an excellent Chair of our Select Committee. He does a tremendous job, and I agree with what he said earlier. We had a meeting last week with my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, and I agree entirely with the trenchant observations that he made. She may even remember some of the remarks that I made, and I still stand by them.
I should like to emphasise how important it is that European Committees, or European Standing Committees as we called them, have permanent members. It would not be the same if members were appointed ad hoc, even if we tried to ensure that they were enthusiasts. I was a member of European Standing Committee B for eight years and I saw things go wrong, in a sense. Right at the beginning, in 1997 when I first became a Member, everyone wanted to speak and ask questions in Committee. The Ministers came along knowing that they had a strong, robust Committee to deal with, and they did their homework.
I remember that one former hon. Friend, Helen Liddell—well, she is still honourable and still a Friend, but she is no longer in the House; she is ambassador to Australia—was concerned to make sure that she got a real grip on the documents and knew what she was talking about. She was prepared to answer all questions
and to make a proper speech. Sadly, because Ministers are no longer treated so enthusiastically by Members who come to speak and ask questions, Government Members—I will not mention names—do not do their homework in the way they used to. The typical performance now is for the Minister to speak, then the Opposition spokesperson, and then the Liberal Democrat Front Bencher. Sometimes I speak, too. That is about it; very few other people participate.
Sometimes, the lack of enthusiasm has meant that there is pressure not to speak or ask questions, because if one did the meeting would go on longer, and people wanted to get away. The atmosphere is that of a Statutory Instrument Committee, where Members are not interested in the subject and want the Committee to be over quickly, and so do not speak or ask questions. That is not how we should treat European legislation; it is too important for that.
Mr. Cash: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are on the same Committee and have experience of how it works in practice. However, I should like to add to what he said about the Whip system. My point also relates to what I said earlier to the shadow Leader of the House. The essence of the problem is that whatever is decided in a European Standing Committee, based on the merits of the debate, really ought to matter, but in one sense it does not. Yes, there is a debate, but if the European Standing Committee turns down a proposal, the position is automatically reversed on the Floor of the House. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, that is why many people in Committee believe that they are going through the motions. To that extent, the process needs to be reformed much more drastically.
Kelvin Hopkins: I understand that point, and I raised it in an earlier intervention, but we have a strongly-whipped parliamentary system, and we cannot get round that too easily. I still believe that the scrutiny meetings and debates on the Floor of the House are important and have some influence. When I speak in a European Standing Committee—I spoke in one last Monday on rail freight, a particular interest of mine—I know that I am speaking to a Minister, who will hear my view. Departmental officials and staff of the House are also present, and hopefully they are all listening and taking note, and are somewhat influenced by what one says. There might even come a point when a Committee defeats a Government motion—the motions are mostly “that the Committee has noted” something. The defeat may then be reversed on the Floor of the House, but the point has been made. That puts pressure on the Government and Ministers, and will at least be a matter for future reference. Perhaps such a defeat will have some influence in the subject area concerned. That is the best that we can do.
One of the points that I made in my submission to the Modernisation Committee was that our system may not be perfect, but it is the best that we have, although I do not describe it as a Panglossian “best of all possible worlds”. We consider issues seriously, and our arrangements are better than those of some other nations. One of my concerns, which I am sure is shared by some Opposition Members, is that under qualified majority voting, things can be voted through because many European nations do not take scrutiny seriously.
They rubber-stamp anything that comes from Brussels. Countries such as ours, which might take a more serious view, cannot obtain a blocking majority because so many countries simply rubber-stamp things, because we are all Europeans now.
Not long ago, I said in a debate in the Chamber that many European Governments—by which I meant systems of government—are less trusted by their citizens than ours. Even with the relative decline in turnout in the UK, by and large people still think our system of government is important and they continue to trust it. We take our Government seriously, whereas in Italy, which has had a chaotic system of government since the second world war, many citizens do not take their Government too seriously; they may say, “Well our Government is useless but at least we’ve got the European Union and it might knock some sense into their heads”. I do not know whether they think that, but it is possible. We tend to think the opposite—we do not want to be governed by Brussels because we can perfectly well govern ourselves. Because we take such things seriously, we should at least preserve our existing scrutiny system and try to improve it, which we are discussing this afternoon.
Permanent membership of Committees is important. Our Whips, or those who appoint Committees, should explore with Members what their interests are and whether they are prepared to take their Committee membership seriously, as with Select Committees. In our party, we apply for membership of Select Committees and are, in effect, appointed by our Whips because we have at least an interest in the subject. If we took that approach with European Committees and their status was raised, even though attendance might still be whipped there would be proper participation and proper questioning of Ministers. Members would at least have looked at the documents and could ask questions or make a speech on the important things.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that we should have more debates on the Floor of the House, not just in Westminster Hall and not just general debates. There are two things that should always be debated on the Floor of the House, and with a good time allowed: the European budget and the report of the Court of Auditors. They are serious documents about whether our money is being spent appropriately and not corruptly.
Will my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House give serious consideration to the possibility of instituting permanent membership of the European Committees? That would be difficult if there were too many Committees, as I pointed out in an earlier submission, because we would have to find more members for them. When I was first an MP, there were two European Standing Committees and then there were three, which is enough. There should be three European Committees with permanent members who take the job seriously and make sure that we perform scrutiny as we should.
Although I have been a member of the European Scrutiny Committee only a few months, I think that it works well, which is partly to do with the splendid way it is chaired. Its members take the Committee seriously and they do a good job, for which I commend them. I enjoy being a member of the Committee because it is taken seriously, but I do not care to be intimidated by
fellow Members into not speaking in Committee because it will delay proceedings and they want to go home. In the past, even one of our Whips has occasionally said, “You’re not going to speak, are you?” That is inappropriate if we are to take our job seriously, and my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader should have a word with our Whips to make sure that it does not happen in future.
I hope that my hon. Friend will take note of the points I have made and ensure that scrutiny works well in future both on the Floor of the House and in the Committees.
4.33 pm
Mr. William Cash (Stone) (Con): The debate has been very useful and I am extremely glad that we have achieved so much agreement. I am also glad to learn that the measure, although important, is an interim one, because we shall need to tackle other matters, as the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins)—a co-member of the Committee—suggested.
I want to make a number of points to set the background for our debate. One of them arises from the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House regarding the Committee’s decision about whether it should sit in public. This is not in any sense a criticism, but an important addendum to the amendment. It relates to the manner in which the chairmanship of the Committee is decided.
The proposal from the shadow Leader of the House is that the Committee shall sit in public unless it determines otherwise. The Committee’s decision about whether to sit in public would inevitably be determined by the agenda, which would be prepared by the Chairman. The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee knows well enough that there are occasions when I do not agree with his decisions, although of course I abide by them, because we try to work as well as possible. Nevertheless, there are occasions when I vote against his proposals in Committee and they are registered in the formal minutes.
We should bear it in mind that there are many Select Committees but only two scrutiny Committees in the House of Commons: the Public Accounts Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee. Although the Public Accounts Committee undoubtedly has a much higher profile, I pay tribute publicly and openly to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) for what he has achieved in the past months since becoming Chairman. In relation to a vast amount of European legislation—for example, in connection with the latest treaty—the issues that crop up get into some extremely sensitive areas in matters of concern to the Government.
The Public Accounts Committee, by convention, always has as its Chairman a member of the Opposition. Even with my 23 years on the European Scrutiny Committee—I would be extremely surprised if any other Member of the House had been on any Select Committee continuously for 23 years—I have never expressed any wish or desire to be Chairman of the Committee, but I think the chairmanship should be in the hands of the Opposition party. I would be
grateful if the shadow Leader of the House took account of this point, which is a matter of extreme importance on occasions.
Michael Connarty: If the hon. Gentleman reads some of my remarks earlier in my own speech, he will see that our Whips think the Committee is indeed chaired by a member of the Opposition.
Mr. Cash: We would concur with that. That is why I wanted to pay tribute to the Chairman. Although we have had a number of disagreements, that is part of the political process. He takes a view on the treaty and on Europe in general that I do not share, but none the less his chairmanship has been extremely good. That is without prejudice to my main concern, which is that just as the Public Accounts Committee should be in the chairmanship of the Opposition, so the chairmanship of the European Scrutiny Committee should be, as well,
Remarks have been transferred back to me about what took place in the Modernisation Committee on one occasion, in the mistaken belief that I wanted to be Chairman of the Committee in view of my long tenure. Somebody suggested that the reason the Opposition did not get the chairmanship was that according to seniority, by a long way, I would get it and that would not be in the interests of those who oppose my views. Well, I do not worry about that because I do not and never have put myself forward as Chairman of the Committee, but the argument that I have advanced about the need for the Opposition to hold the Chair stands good, without prejudice to the excellent work that the current Chairman does.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise for not being present for most of the debate, as I have been in the Westminster Hall debate. Does he agree that the answer is that Select Committees should decide their own Chair? It is outrageous that that is laid down for Select Committees. Many of us would have no compunction about voting for someone of a different party if they were the best Chair for the Select Committee. That is the way the matter should be handled.
Mr. Cash: I agree. My party has a taskforce, chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), on democracy and the workings of Parliament. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend’s work, although I had one big disagreement about European scrutiny, which is one of the issues raised in the report. I also pay tribute to the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on questions of scrutiny; I shall come to one of her specific proposals—amendment (f)—in a moment.
There is a problem about how representations are made to the Committee. For the Committee to be able to deliberate as is proposed under these changes to the Standing Orders, and even as it does at the moment, there are excellent advisers, to whom the hon. Member for Luton, North referred. I pay tribute to them. I have
been on the Committee for 23 years and believe that they have been an enormous bulwark and have offered excellent advice. They are completely dispassionate; I have never had reason to doubt the quality of their advice or of the enormous amount of work that they put into the incredibly complex documents.
I should like to pay special tribute to the current legal adviser to the Committee—and to his predecessors, but especially to him. He has shown dedication and an enormous amount of legal knowledge of a kind that simply cannot properly be quantified.
Mr. Clappison indicated assent.
Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend agrees with my tribute, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) also would if he were here.
Kelvin Hopkins: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said on that. Does he agree that the cover notes on all the documents are absolutely first class—clear, concise, well written and to the point—and in extreme contrast to the almost unintelligible documentation coming from Europe?
Mr. Cash: On the whole, people outside the House, particularly media commentators, pay absolutely no attention to what goes on in the European Scrutiny Committee, although I have noticed that some of the sketch writers come in occasionally. Generally speaking, European scrutiny is regarded as a subject to be accompanied by an enormous yawn and seen as about the most boring thing on earth. However, the bottom line is that the scrutiny of European legislation is at the heart of what goes on in the House.
Earlier, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that the German Parliament had calculated that 60 per cent. of its legislation initiates in Brussels; in fact, former President Herzog put the figure at 85 per cent. I do not believe that such people are trying to mislead or exaggerate, any more than we are when we make our own estimates. The fact is that the whole of the legislative process has, in a sense, been inverted. Without going the whole way down that route, I simply make the point that that is why the focus on the European scrutiny process is so critical.
As the hon. Member for Luton, North pointed out, and as I did in an intervention on the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), if that scrutiny is not done properly in the other member states—if things are done in a way that is inconsistent with our vital national interests—and we are governed by qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers, the consequences could be dire for this country. I want to put that general proposition on the record.
Just before Christmas, another point arose in the context of a failure to comply with the resolution of November 1998. In a motion that I proposed in the European Scrutiny Committee—I am not disclosing any confidences, as this is well known—I proposed that the Prime Minister should be required to comply with the scrutiny reserve Standing Orders and that resolution with respect to the signing of the treaty.
As regards the document that we had considered, it was in the spirit of Standing Orders—the key thing in relation to the manner in which the procedures of this House operate—that for the words “IGC opinion”, one could read, “reform treaty”. We said that there should be a debate on the Floor of the House and that that should be done before the Prime Minister signed the treaty on 13 December. That was not done, and the bottom line is that there was a bit of buckling all round. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and I, with about 12 of our hon. Friends, went through the Lobby to support our opposition to the position that the Government had adopted. I think that there was a misunderstanding in some quarters as to the importance of all this, as I said when I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead. I believe that our party should have put its foot down very strongly on that occasion. It caused a few ruffles, but let us not worry about that, because these things happen in the political arena.
I was delighted to notice that the next morning an excellent pamphlet written by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House was published in which she laid down the requirement that if circumstances arose in which the Government did not comply with the scrutiny reserve, the most dire sanctions should be visited upon them. I will not go into the detail because I do not have the pamphlet with me. For practical purposes, she was completely right. We all learn from these experiences, and the shadow Leader of the House has done us a service by publishing that pamphlet, although I have no doubt that there are other matters which we could discuss further and which could be added to it.
Another question is that of representations to the European Scrutiny Committee by bodies such as the CBI, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors. I mentioned that when I spoke on Second Reading of the Single European Act in 1986 and I wrote an article in The Times about it in the same year. I said, in the light of my experience in advising on the impact of legislation for 20 years before I came to the House, that in relation to scrutiny it is essential that trade associations that are concerned to get matters right for their membership—it applies to the trade unions as well—should make their views known in advance to the Committee. Our scrutiny reserve process provides a breathing space by putting on hold any decision by a Minister in the Council of Ministers, and in that intervening period, after we have given it due consideration, a change of mind could take place. That makes any overriding by a Government Department of a decision that is taken by the Committee, where it is done wilfully, a grievous breach of Standing Orders and of the resolution of 1998.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |