| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as the noble Baroness informed the House when she opened the debate, the question of representation on the convention and other matters were raised during our debates on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. It is hoped that we shall complete the final stage of that Bill today. I am not at all sure that the matters raised were resolved either in Committee or on Report. However, we now have the opportunity to discuss the
appointment and, indeed, the method of appointment of parliamentarians from this Parliament to the convention.My first question goes back to the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I understood—I may be wrong; perhaps the Minister will put me right—that the invitations relating to both the Government and Parliament were sent to the Government. However, my view, and I should have thought the view of most, if not all, Members of this House and another place, is that the invitation to parliamentarians should have been sent either to the Clerk of the Parliaments or to the Speakers of both Houses. They are the proper routes by which invitations to Parliament for attendance at conventions and other such matters should go. I should like an answer to that point if possible.
I listened with great interest to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who, I believe, raised a very important point. If we are to have Cross-Benchers in this House, then they should be entitled to equal consideration with all other sides of the House. I am not suggesting that this corner of the House should have equal treatment; nevertheless, the Cross-Benchers should be considered. I am surprised that they were given such short notice of the proposal which we are now discussing.
I am also surprised—no doubt there are very good reasons for it—that the noble and gallant Lord did not table an amendment to the Motion. If he had done so, he would have given the House the opportunity to make a real choice. He must have been surprised to have been given such short notice on this occasion, but in future he may like to take that into account.
As other noble Lords have said, the noble Lords who have been proposed are excellent people; there is no question about that. They have given great service to both Houses. Certainly that of the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Maclennan, is rather shorter than that of the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. Nevertheless, he has an excellent record in Parliament, as does the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson.
However, there is a problem. I believe that both are very much in favour of further European integration and, therefore, the other point of view will not be represented. During our debates at the Committee and Report stages of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, we questioned the noble Baroness as to how the views of the very large minority—I do not believe that it is a majority—of people in this country who are opposed to further integration, many of whom would like to withdraw from the European Community entirely, would be expressed. We shall certainly need to address, first, how those views are to be sought by the representatives and, secondly, how they are to be put across.
Another question that I want to ask the noble Baroness—if, indeed, she knows the answer—is whether Eurosceptic outside bodies will be able to submit papers to the convention. If they are able to do so, will those papers be considered by the convention
and not merely summarised and brushed aside by the president, the two deputy presidents and the bureaucrats who serve them?Those are the questions to which I should like to receive an answer. I believe that this is possibly the first time—and I am very pleased because I consider it to be progress—that this House has had the opportunity to discuss the nominations and the system.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I strongly support the nominations before us. Both are eminent noble Lords with great expertise in European matters. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, raised the issue of independence because of the way in which he perceived the process to have taken place. For 15 years I was a neighbouring Member of the European Parliament to the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson. From personal experience I know that he has a great record of being extremely independently minded and will no doubt bring that to the work he will do.
I also know that he will put first and foremost his accountability to this House in reporting back to us on the work of the convention. Indeed, with his record on budgetary matters, action against fraud and on chairing our committee in this House he will be someone in whose hands our views, concerns and opinions will be extremely safe. I would also say the same of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I suppose that whether one supports the nomination of the two noble Lords to the convention, depends on what the agenda of the convention will be. I do not know whether the noble Baroness can enlighten us. Is there any suggestion that the convention should go back to basics and start by wondering whether the European Union should continue at all, or has the time come to wrap it up and rely on free trade, inter-governmental collaboration, defence from NATO, and so forth?
I imagine that the noble Baroness will reply that that is a very silly question and that of course that will not be on the agenda. Therefore, if that is so, we must assume that the idea is for the United Kingdom to continue as a member of the European Union, the future shape of which is somewhat uncertain at present. However, I think we can take it for granted that it will not be a shape which entails any less power in Brussels.
The Government say that they want a public debate on this matter. I do not see that we shall get that by the appointment of the noble Lords as proposed or, indeed, anyone else to this convention, which will, after all, be a convention of politicians and like-minded people. How are the British people to be involved in this debate? The noble Baroness will be aware that if opinion polls are to be believed, many British people, perhaps even a majority, now favour reducing our relationship with the European Union to one merely of free trade. How can the people decide this matter if they do not know what are the alternatives to our continued membership of the European Union?
I put it to the noble Baroness that the Government should now set up some form of cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Union so that the work of this no doubt excellent convention can be taken into consideration by the British public, who should then be allowed to make up their minds as to how this project should proceed, or otherwise.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Roper and Lord Stoddart, got it right when they pointed out that the very fact that we are debating this issue is unprecedented. Although the invitation to participate has been a process evolved by the Government, that was in discussions with other parties. I believe that this opportunity for both Houses to comment on the names put forward is a welcome precedent. I hoped that perhaps it would have been given a rather more generous welcome from some noble Lords on the Benches opposite.
We first discussed this matter in a Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in October. On 31st October last year I held a consultative meeting in your Lordships' House to which every one of your Lordships was invited and to which every single Member of this House could have come, had your Lordships so wished. That was three months ago. To describe this as having been a very rushed job is somewhat gilding the lily. We have had three months. Sadly, that meeting was poorly attended. With some honourable exceptions, noble Lords did not avail themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was very kind insofar as he was able to give us the benefit of his knowledge about what had happened on a previous similar occasion.
Noble Lords say that this matter has not been agreed through the usual channels and that it is a great pity that the two full members—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she not agree that an invitation to the very important meeting which she has just described should have been made in a different way rather that in an answer to a supplementary question in your Lordships' House? I have no doubt that the noble Baroness was trying to help and wanted to hold the meeting as soon as possible. However, perhaps in future when she holds such meetings she will give better notice and in such a manner so that all people, even those who cannot catch up with Hansard every day can respond?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I would always wish to give noble Lords the maximum opportunity to attend meetings which might be of interest to them. Having made the announcement on the Floor of the House, naturally it was published in Hansard. I understand that the Whips' offices of the main parties represented in your Lordships' House were given notice of the date of the meeting. Again, that meeting was unprecedented. It was a genuine effort to try to do everything within my power, meagre as it is, to hold consultation.
There has been criticism that the two full members will come from another place. I have no problem with the two full members coming from the elected House. I am bound to say to the Opposition that if they had a problem with that, it was within their power to make their arguments to their own Front Bench in another place that it should be a Member of this House who was the full member from the Conservative Party. It was within their power so to do. I do not know whether they did that. Whether they took that up is entirely a matter for them. However, I find no problem with the arrangements as far as concerns the representation from my own party.
The party opposite is also very worried indeed about the representation from the Liberal Democrats. That is a matter for the Liberal Democrat Party. The Liberal Democrats were generous enough not to make comments about representation from the Conservative Party, although I understand that at one stage there was a certain amount of conjecture about that. We have to tolerate each other's ways of doing this. It is right and proper that we respect each other's processes.
The point has been made about the Cross-Benchers. Again, the Cross-Benchers had the opportunity, not only to attend the meeting to which I have just referred, but every opportunity in the past three months to make their representations. The noble Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, says that he did. As he said, to be fair to him, that was pretty late in the day, but there has been that opportunity. The Order Paper has been before your Lordships and any of your Lordships could have tabled an amendment. That has not been the case. I do not want to encourage amendments; I shall be extremely grateful if we can reach the end of this matter in fairly good order.
The noble Lord, Lord Roper, asked whether the alternate members can be observers when the principals are there. The answer is yes. The noble Lord asked about support. These are parliamentary representatives. It is up to the House to arrange that. I sought to imply that the Government will be happy to provide whatever briefing the representatives from Parliament may wish to have. In making that suggestion, I hope that I am not encroaching on any of the understandable distinctions that noble Lords would wish to draw—I say this to Members of my own side—between the Government as government and the Labour Party. The parliamentary representatives are representing the Labour interest and not the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Roper, asked about reporting back. It is not possible for me to guarantee an amount of time for that. That will be for the usual channels to decide. However, it is important to have full reporting back. I believe that all information should be made available. I hope that the usual channels will be able to facilitate that.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was kind enough to talk about the arrangements made last time. I fully appreciate that he would rather have received his paperwork independently. I hope that he agrees that where the Government were able to help—the system may not have worked as effectively as it might have done—that was useful. I believe that the Government's attitude on future occasions will be no different.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that 40 per cent of your Lordships opposed further integration and that, therefore, the "eurosceptic" view—that was the term he used—should have greater representation. It is difficult to say that someone who opposes further European integration is a eurosceptic. I do not believe that that is true. But we have had a lengthy debate on the Nice Bill. I am mindful that we have Third Reading later today. Despite the 40 per cent to which the noble Lord refers, the Government have not done too badly in getting through their agenda. The Nice Bill was firmly placed in the Labour Party manifesto which went before the country in June last year and we know what happened in that election.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page