| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the noble Lord suggest one committee only which does all the scrutiny or is he suggesting that each of the sub-committees covering an area should have a shadow scrutiny committee? If it is the former, I believe that that would involve far too wide an area and there would be far too much to do.
Lord Desai: My Lords, it is the former and not the latter. My experience was that business was done after the witnesses had gone. We then had about five minutes left to carry out scrutiny. I am sure that we did our best. But very often things would arrive late and we had to send them back. We sent rude letters to Ministers and so forth. I would like one sub-committee only for scrutiny across everything. Of course, there will be a lot of work, but such work is not done as well now as I would like. Noble Lords may disagree, but that is my view. One needs an overall picture from one sub-committee which can look across different areas. It would be similar to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It has to look at what is going on and who is taking what powers from national parliaments. Good as the sub-committees are—and I do not deny their significant contribution—scrutiny is a very important matter and cannot be left as the last item of business on sub-committee agendas.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving way. He has raised an extremely important point. The present structure under which we carry out scrutiny is specifically designed so that items for scrutiny, having been sifted, are sent to those committees which are specialists in a particular subject. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that if we were to organise matters in such a way that only one committee dealt with all matters, it would have to be very large indeed with a very wide representation of experience and expertise.
Lord Desai: My Lords, that may be so, but I am not entirely convinced. We have many versatile people in this House. People with experience of the European Parliament can speak on many subjects. That is what
parliamentarians are for: they are generalists. Even if we need a committee of 10 or l2, or whatever the figure, we should really explore this topic because by not paying attention to scrutiny we are omitting something.I do not want to be unfair to my noble friend, of whom I am very fond. The sort of objection he raised characterises the entire report. As soon as someone says something, the response is, "It can't be done, dear boy: far too many people would be required which would be very expensive and time-consuming. There are also not enough people to do what you want. If they were good enough they will not have the time to do what is required and therefore it cannot be done".
Reading Part 4 of the report I was reminded of many dictators in the past who pointed out why one cannot have democracy or, if one does, it cannot be any good. All those arguments are rehearsed in the report. We are told that parliamentarians cannot be in two places at once. The venues will be some distance apart. The existence of the Channel is very interesting. It makes us believe that Europe is a vast country. In India people travel to more than one legislative body. Indeed, on mainland Europe people frequently have dual and triple mandates and manage perfectly well. The Reverend Ian Paisley is a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Westminster Parliament and the European Parliament. I believe that he thrives on it. The idea that people with two jobs will not be able to carry them out effectively is superficially accepted.
The other part of the argument is that if one has senior people—I refer to paragraph 30 of the report—who carry real political weight, whatever that is, there will not be sufficient for them to do. For the chaps in the lower divisions there is far too much to do, but for the real, high-class people there is not enough,, therefore, we cannot do this or that.
Another problem is a practical one. At what stage would one deal with the legislation? I believe that there is a failure of imagination. The committee accepted that the present way of doing things is entirely proper and will never change, therefore if a second chamber is introduced nothing will be changed. Everything will carry on as usual and the committee will barge around. If we do not like the way things are done let us change them and introduce a proper role for a second chamber. Whether one calls it a democratic deficit or a lack of legitimacy, it is a very serious problem for the European Union which will get worse with enlargement. Indeed, because of the way in which enlargement discussions are taking place, many governments have not told their people what is about to happen through enlargement. When people find out there will be riots on the streets particularly, for example, when they realise what it will do to the labour markets of Europe. I have said this before in this Chamber. There will be riots because people have not been told what fantastic economic consequences will result from enlargement.
I strongly believe that if directly elected national parliamentarians were selected for a small delegation to constitute a second chamber, with perhaps no more than 10 from each parliament and perhaps even fewer after enlargement, that body would be able to reflect the citizens' concerns, not those of the governments. The Council represents only the governments and everyone regards governments with suspicion. They will always take away one's civil liberties and rights. National parliamentarians should be trusted. They should look at what is taking place in their name which at the moment neither the European Parliament nor the Council is able to do.
I believe that I have taken up too much time. I am very disappointed by the report because it freezes things as they are now. It tries to find every objection possible to a second chamber and concludes that nothing can be done to solve this very serious problem. Perhaps the Government will ignore it.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I rise with trepidation following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, having been suitably admonished. I considered throwing away my speech and saying something entirely different, but I shall not. As a member of the committee, and unlike the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, our chairman; my noble friend Lord Tordoff, who started us off on our report; and our excellent clerks, Tom Mohan and Simon Burton, who helped us through our many deliberations and the work we did.
I must confess that at the outset of our inquiry into the proposals by the Prime Minister and others to set up a second chamber of the European Parliament, I was pretty sceptical about why it was felt to be necessary. Throughout our scrutiny sessions, that scepticism was reinforced by most of our witnesses.
What was the purpose of a second chamber? The Prime Minister seemed to indicate that he wished for a simpler and more accessible way of determining what the EU should be doing at its level of competence and how we could better scrutinise national governance in EU matters. I have no doubt that his motives for wanting us to explore that are entirely laudable, but as our report indicates, this is not perhaps the best way to achieve his aims.
The role of a second chamber would appear to be not dissimilar to the old European parliamentary way of doing things—holding a dual mandate—and, as we have heard from other noble Lords, having national parliamentarians also dealing with the thorny subjects of competence, subsidiarity and proportionality in the EU Parliament and attempting to translate that into policy at home.
A number of graphic descriptions were given to us about the lack of accountability of MEPs to their national parliaments and the enormous time constraints there would be on members. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, MEP—who I am delighted to see in his place today; I hope he will forgive me for
quoting him—advised us in his evidence at page 93, paragraph 299 when addressing the idea of a second chamber or senate:
- "if it is going to do anything useful—and if it does not do anything useful there cannot be a great deal of point in having it—a considerable amount of time has got to be devoted by its Members to the task in hand and I question whether it is really possible to give the appropriate commitment at a national parliamentary level and at this Senate level".
As we have already heard, that was a recurring theme throughout our examination of witnesses. How could we get busy members of a national parliament to participate in this work? When would they attend meetings? How would they balance the competing political and domestic challenges at home with those expected of them in Europe? That was graphically highlighted to us by the evidence given by my noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston, who I am sorry is not in his place, when comparing similar work done by members who attend Council of Europe meetings. In his evidence, at page 34, he said:
- "About a third of the membership of the Council of Europe Assembly changes every year. That does not mean to say that the whole lot is changed after three years, of course; it is simply that there is a turnover due in part to elections but also due to a reluctance to stay too long".
- "Many of them go to the Council of Europe but then keep it a deadly secret that they have actually been there; they do not make any kind of song and dance about it".
Having looked at the possible difficulties arising from a dual mandate, we then come to the problem of deciding just when this body of politicians might meet. Our report asks at which stage in the legislative process a second chamber might look at proposed European legislation, if that is to be one of its functions.
If it is proposed that one of its functions is to check for subsidiarity, at which point in the life cycle of the second chamber would that be achieved? It is suggested the chamber meet infrequently, but if that is the case, how can it meaningfully undertake proper scrutiny of complex policy? Done too early, without proper and thorough consideration, it would be pointless, and doing it at a later stage in the legislative cycle would run the risk of straying into the territory occupied by the Council of Ministers. I cannot imagine that the Council would be too happy with that.
We then come to the problem of costs. A second chamber would need the formal setting up of a secretariat, and possibly research facilities, which would require a significant amount of money. There are a number of European forums where participants meet to discuss common areas of interest. I question the need to add an additional body to an already extensive list.
I was keen to know whether interest was being shown in other member states about the desirability of having a second chamber. Mr Crossick from the European Policy Centre told me in his evidence, at page 42:
- "I think that the Second Chamber, as constituted by the Council legislatively, is not being pushed to any great extent. The idea of national parliamentarians making it up is of course being pushed
- in the United Kingdom and finds favour in Denmark but I have to say that at this stage of the debate it has not really been the central feature".
- "I do not believe that the idea of having a Second Chamber of national parliamentarians essentially to cover subsidiarity, which is the only really firm proposal, has been given a lot of attention".
Other evidence came from Commissioner Michael Barnier. I asked him about whether the applicant countries were taking an interest in a second chamber. Again, the reply, at page 48, mirrored that of Mr Crossick:
- "I see no special concerns amongst them about the existence or otherwise of a second chamber".
I have been fortunate enough to represent the European Sub-Committee F, which I have the honour to chair, at one or two meetings and presented our work on JHA issues to colleagues from both member and applicant states. I have presented some of the work done by the European committees of this House. That work has been well received. I have also attended one meeting of COSAC. We have heard a variety of comments about the usefulness of COSAC, most of which, as your Lordships will have seen, were not complimentary—at least about its business, if not its venues, as my noble friend Lord Goodhart pointed out. However, with a bit of tweaking and a good dose of common sense from all participants, it could be made to work better and would be a more acceptable model to me than a proposed second chamber.
It would certainly need restructuring, as it is an intolerable burden for whichever country holds the responsibility at any one time. That certainly needs looking at. More importantly, its work needs focusing, as we have heard. That focus should be firmly on the scrutiny role of national parliaments. It was set up originally as a forum for exchanging views about national parliamentary approaches to EU issues and should, in my view, restrict its work to overcoming some of the practical problems of parliamentary scrutiny of those issues. Of course there will be major political themes we would want also to discuss, but that can be as an addition to the real work of scrutiny, which should be better defined and attempted by all participant member states.
We learnt too of other co-operation between parliaments where views can be readily exchanged. I mention the forthcoming convention to prepare for the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference. There is also the Council of Europe; the Committee of the Regions; exchanges between officials; links between political parties; our MEPs; and our national office in Brussels, which links to the European Parliament—we heard great praise for its work. I mention also the organisations referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Jopling and Lord Tomlinson. So, there is already a plethora of contacts and exchanges of views and ideas.
The intergovernmental conference will be addressing many of the concerns about the so-called democratic deficit, and the work done between now and 2004 will be instrumental in moving towards
greater clarity and the simplification of processes in the European Union. I wish the convention well. It has a great deal of work to do, but we must let our representatives to the convention help mould the European Union to make it more easily understood, more transparent and less bureaucratic. A second chamber at this stage would be unhelpful, unwieldy and downright unnecessary.4.40 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the committee generally on its report.
I take a somewhat different view of it from that of my noble friend Lord Desai. Indeed, I found his contribution somewhat incomprehensible. If I may be kind, he said that he disagreed with the report, so I expected to hear him spell out in detail why he disagreed with it and why he wanted a second chamber, but he made only one brief reference to it. He said that in practice there is a lot wrong elsewhere, and I would agree with much of that. Of course, there is a need for Select Committees to do this, that and all kinds of things in this place and another. But my noble friend did not spell out why a second chamber in the European Parliament would be wrong, as the committee has done so forcefully and fully.
I do not know who thought of the title:
- "an unreal solution to some real problems",
However, I hope that the committee will forgive a non-member for making a brief contribution. I shall be brief, because my noble friend Lord Tomlinson spelt out comprehensively the case for the report and why there is no need for a second chamber in the European Parliament. I say that as someone who is strongly pro-European Union, as some of my colleagues know. The important thing is to get the existing Chamber in the European Parliament right. We talk about transparency and accountability, with which I strongly agree, but the reason why the media do not cover what happens in the European Parliament is that much of it is not madly interesting to them. If a television company sought to televise the European Parliament, I fear that it would not have huge audience figures, so I hope that my old friends in the BBC do not have it in mind to do so at present.
There is a case for greater accountability and transparency and it is plain that the issue of a second chamber is being taken seriously by some important people. It is therefore vital that we should spell out why we disagree so strongly with those important people. That starts with the Prime Minister. We see from part of the transcript of his Warsaw speech on page 1 of the evidence that he flew a kite, which is all that I hope it was, as my noble friend Lord Grenfell said. No doubt my noble friend Lord Grocott, who will be replying to the debate, will confirm that the Prime Minster did not
agree with the proposal, but was only flying a kite. I hope that that is the case and that he is not in favour of a second chamber in the European Parliament.We heard that the French started the debate way back in 1953. They wanted a second chamber in the European Parliament and under their strong leadership, all agreed that there should be a second chamber. There are even some who think like that in your Lordships' House. They tend to sit on the other side and we do not see them too often, but I should like to hear their views. I am thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, whose views on Europe I agree with strongly, as well the noble Lords, Lord Patten and Lord Brittan. They are all sensible noble Lords. I say that because they agree with me on European matters.
There is a danger that such proposals will be taken seriously by the convention. The arguments for a second chamber include the so-called democratic deficit, foreign and security matters, justice and home affairs. I assume that Members in the present Chamber of the European Parliament are discussing those issues now. I hope that they are doing so. We do not hear about their discussions, of course. Perhaps some of them do not take those issues as seriously as my noble friend Lord Desai, or as seriously as anyone in this House or in another place, but they are important issues.
My noble friend—if I may call him that—Lord Williamson of Horton, who is usually experienced in European Union matters, and who is much respected both over there and over here, made some good points that we might consider, but not because there is a need for a second chamber in the European Parliament. The case against that was very well made by the committee and my noble friend Lord Tomlinson, so I shall not repeat the arguments.
En passant I must say that the committee, in paragraph 83, was very kind to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. It lauded him, although I cannot think why. I should not have thought that that was required on what he said about the need for a second chamber. No doubt someone who sits on the Select Committee—perhaps the chairman—will say why the committee thought fit to laud my right honourable friend on that issue. It may be possible to laud him on lots of other issues, although I cannot think of any for the minute.
I should have thought that our experience with our second Chamber, with all the discussions on its powers and composition, would be enough to turn anyone off from talking about second chambers. That is for only one country, let alone 15. The case for a second chamber has not been made. However, as I said, I am worried that important people are taking the matter seriously. When that happens, there is a great danger that they will want to do something about it. I hope that the committee and my noble friend Lord Grocott, who knows how fond I am of him, will tell the Prime Minister and the Government that we do not like the idea at all, even if we exclude my noble friend Lord Desai, which is not too difficult.
That brings me to the preparations for the 2004 Intergovernmental Conference. I hope that maximum pressure will be put on the Government to make it clear that this House and the other place—I hope—are strongly opposed to even the remotest possibility of a second chamber in the European Parliament. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, when opening the debate, suggested that we might take our discussions a little wider. Perhaps I could do that on one issue: I hope that the convention will discuss seriously the abolition of the Strasbourg Parliament—I hope that my noble friend Lord Grocott might even agree with that proposal. I cannot think of anyone who supports the idea of Members of the European Parliament traipsing backwards and forwards between Brussels and Strasbourg on a regular monthly basis. It gives the few Euro-sceptics around a marvellous opportunity to criticise the system. I hope that strong support will be given in the convention to do just that. If it upsets the French, they might forget about the issue of a second chamber.
Most, if not all, of the functions suggested for a second chamber could and should be performed very well by the present Chamber. The idea of having members from 15 national Parliaments, with all the time that they do not have available, travelling to debate big issues is so nonsensical that I am astonished that those who advise our right honourable friend the Prime Minister were not aware of that. However, they were not, so the kite-flying can perhaps stop here.
I do not propose to go on for much longer. I hope that my noble friend Lord Grocott can confirm that this House's views will be put clearly to the Prime Minister—it is possible that he will not read this debate—as to why we do not want a second chamber in the European Parliament. I am in favour of a second chamber here, but I hope that, as a Chamber, we agree that we do not want a second chamber in the European Parliament. That is not only my view, but—I hope—the view of the whole House, apart from one of my noble friends.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I begin like all other noble Lords by declaring that I too believe this to be a good report, not merely for all the good reasons already alluded to, but also because its conclusions are very much in line with the evidence which I gave to the committee.
I thank those noble Lords who referred to the evidence which I gave to the committee. I confess it is gratifying to hear oneself quoted, though I began to become paranoid when I realised that it came from no one on the Benches on which I sit. However, having heard my noble constituent, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I am glad to say that the way in which he referred to a number of my noble friends put it into perspective. It just shows how sensibly they approach this issue.
What is interesting about my evidence is not that it is "my" evidence, but that the evidence I gave is more or less the same as the evidence that was given by my
colleagues in the European Parliament from different political parties; in other words, the thrust of our evidence went in the same direction. Against that background it is hardly surprising that last week, in Strasbourg, we voted for the Napolitano report—the European Parliament's response to the kind of subjects we are considering today. The conclusions in that report are similar to the conclusions reached by your Lordships' Select Committee.If we look back over the past 18 months or so, we have seen articulated in a number of different places concern that political decision-making in the European Union is somehow moving away from the citizen and causing political alienation. We saw it in the Prime Minister's speech, which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has been lauding. We saw it in the remarks of Chancellor Shro der of Germany, in the European Parliament, here, and in the French Senate. Of course, there is a real problem that we need to address. I believe, like other speakers, that a second chamber of national parliamentarians is not the answer, for the kind of reasons that have been given.
Having heard the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I was minded to turn to the response of the Government to this report. Paragraph 5 says simply this on the general issue:
- "We do not underestimate the complexity of the practical arrangements of meshing national Parliaments into European structures".
- "We judge that there are options that would allow this".
If we look back over the past 20 or 30 years or so at what has been going on in the world, it is not surprising to see that a lot of important decision-making is moving away from the floor of national parliaments. After all, with increased mobility of goods, people and services, an increasingly commercially inter-dependent world is being created in which matters cannot be regulated within one single jurisdiction. Against that background, collectively, democratic politicians must find a way of working on the wider canvas. It may be that eventually we will move into a world that is globally based under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation or its successor. It may be—I hope not and do not myself expect it—that we shall merge into a federal homogenous European superstate. I do not believe that that will happen. But it could, I suppose. What I hope will happen in the immediate future is that we see a Europe which evolves but which is firmly built around a European nation state. That is my preferred option. Or it is possible that the whole thing completely collapses—it is more likely that pigs will fly—and we all go back to the world of the 1950s with classical inter-governmental diplomacy.
Regardless of what happens, politicians in democratic countries must find ways of taking collective decisions. That will mean an increasing political importance for scrutiny and accountability.
One of the problems we face in that regard is that once governments get into the habit of not being accountable and not being properly scrutinised, it is rather like secret drinking—it becomes addictive and spills out into all sorts of other areas. On most occasions when Ministers return from the Council of Ministers having completed some important deal or conducted some important business, no significant account is given by them of what happened. We have seen that in other areas. From time to time—rightly—the Government are criticised for not giving policy decisions first to Parliament. The problem then is that when politicians and Parliament complain, the general response is that nothing much happens and the public say, "So what?".As well as being important in their own right, the specifics we are discussing today are part of a wider, important political issue, which is a problem for Parliament in general and our specific Parliament in particular. Unlike many previous speakers, I have not had the privilege of sitting in the other place. But as an outsider it seems to me that in recent years the House of Commons has more or less become the electoral college for the election of the Prime Minister. Thereafter it is in thrall to the Whips. So it operates much more as an arm of government than as a counterbalance in a system of checks and balances. Of course, as we have been told frequently in the context of House of Lords reform, we are subordinated to the other place.
In that set of circumstances, and in a political culture where both chambers ascribe greater primacy to legislation than to scrutiny—after all, this debate was only tabled at this prime time because the Government's legislative programme was sufficiently sparse to enable it to happen—legislation will increasingly be of the kind we see now in areas where European directives are the umbrella under which it takes place. We are finding in Parliament that the terms of reference for the legislation that we are dealing with are not set by us. At the same time, scrutiny has somehow been downgraded. It seems to have less political sex appeal. What is important is that right across the waterfront, not only in the area of European activity, it needs to be accorded greater importance and—if I can put it this way—given a dose of political Viagra.
This part of the debate is difficult in the wider political debate domestically. I do not see any great evidence that the public care particularly about these matters. Many people in the wider world probably prefer announcements to be made on television and the Minister or the person responsible to be interviewed by a professional inquisitor. If we compare that with announcements in Parliament and an ensuing debate, many people would consider the television announcement much more user friendly and more relevant to their circumstances.
Again, as I mentioned before, the other political problem we face is that when Parliament tries to pull up governments that are not giving a proper account
of what they are doing, there is a certain amount of noise and things then seem to go on much as they did before. The effect is damaging to Parliament.Another problem is the fact that operating within a system of more than one country, as we are in the European Union, if alienation takes root in one part of the system, that alienation, like cancer, can creep right across the whole body politic. So where we find difficulties in one member state, we find it causes uncertainty and disaffection in others. A problem clearly exists. We have seen concern articulated throughout the European Union about the underlying reasons why we are speaking today.
At the same time, we cannot expect other member states to do these things exactly as we do. They, after all, have different traditions and ways of doing things which are just as dear to them as our ways in this country are to us. It was a point that one of my Spanish European People's Party/European Democrat colleagues made very forcefully in a pre-meeting in the European Parliament about the Napolitano report. He said that it is very important that no one tells parliaments what to do; the solution to this must be based on parliaments among themselves agreeing on the way forward. If someone outside our Parliament tried to dictate to us how to scrutinise European business, we would not take it very well.
Against that background it is suggested, both by the Select Committee's report and by the Napolitano committee in the European Parliament, that COSAC could provide a suitable framework for taking these matters forward. Equally, the forthcoming convention in Laeken provides an opportunity for that. There has been considerable criticism articulated about the Laeken convention and its processes. Possibly its strongest attribute is that it is not its alternative, which is to go back to agenda setting for the IGC in the smoke-filled rooms of Council meetings of one form or another.
If we can open up the process of agenda setting for the IGC, parliamentarians are likely to become much more interested in and excited by the kind of issues that we are talking about today. Perhaps—politically far more important—it means that they are much more likely to be taken seriously in the ensuing IGC because they have been put on the agenda and the public and the parliaments of the various member states will actually want to see something done.
In conclusion, the report touches on some extremely important issues at the heart of the relationship between the European Union and the democratic process. That in itself is very significant. But it is also an important case study of a wider malaise that exists between governors and the governed which for both of our sakes we need to remedy.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in an important part of her speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, alluded to what she called, and what has become known as, the democratic deficit. She placed some emphasis on it. She sought to highlight
something that all of us really know: that the ordinary people in Europe, and more particularly in the United Kingdom, are not particularly enamoured of politics or politicians. In fact they have become disillusioned by them.We all know in our hearts that things are not really well in our country; that the gap between the rich and the poor is still much too large; and that there is still much poverty and suffering for us to attend to. Her Majesty's Government are doing their part—not perhaps as much as one would like, but nevertheless it is an endeavour. But there is profound unease with the political process generally.
The report of the Select Committee dealt with many of those issues. More particularly, my noble friend Lord Tomlinson—who I thank—put his finger on the matter. He questioned one of the commissioners who gave evidence before the committee. The words burnt into my mind and will remain there. On 15th October 2001 at page 47 of the evidence, he said:
- "Do you believe that I am being excessively cynical if I put to you the idea that national parliaments have already got all the powers that they need, the only thing they have not got is the political will to use them in relation to their governments, and, therefore, this whole idea is being government driven, it certainly is not being citizen driven? . . . it has been largely government driven to give national parliaments another role to divert them from the powers and responsibilities that they have already got for better controlling national governments, something which they seem singularly to be failing to do".
The democratic deficit to which the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, referred is due precisely to the inability of Parliament—both Houses—to make the Government accountable to Parliament and to the people. That it has not done.
In this connection, as perhaps might be expected of me, I want to draw the European Commission into the matter because its policies are very largely committed to those that are put forward by the European Union. That process I shall presently describe. So far as concerns the European Union and the Commission, the democratic deficit is not due to governments at all. It is not due even to the policies that they are following out in their own countries. In the Commission's view—one finds abundant justification for it—there are some institutional defects. The moment that transparency is queried in any way—the process of communication between government and people—the Commission's immediate instinct is that there must be some other institutional problem: "We must create another organisation; we must create another committee; we must create another focus group. It is the institutions that are wrong, not the governments".
That way of looking at the ills of our country and of Europe is exactly the wrong way to go about the matter. We are the second Chamber here. Together with Members that are found in another place we constitute Members of the British Parliament. We should know quite well that our main difficulty is to get governments to operate in accordance with Parliament and Parliament's wishes. In that we have singularly failed.
So far as concerns Europe, perhaps I may give your Lordships a practical example. Every week or 10 days the Vote Office issues to those members who are interested in Europe a list of documents and papers to which it is inviting the attention of Members of Parliament. I have one in front of me. It is dated 1st February. So it is up-to-date. I have been through it very carefully. Apart from drawing attention to the Official Journal and various other records of parliamentary proceedings, it lists no fewer than 64 separate items of legislation—proposals, draft proposals or draft decisions—all for consideration by Members of Parliament. It is a long document. Some of the papers referred to are quite short, but some are of great importance. I defy any Member of the House to apply for all of them and be able to read them in under a week, let alone to understand them. They comprise the agenda for the European Parliament, for all the use that that may be.
Your Lordships may note that there have been some improvements; there certainly have. There was a time when the first business of the European Parliament, when it met in one of its two meeting places—or should that be three?—was to call a meeting of the College of Questors, which met before everyone else in the presence, if necessary, of parliamentary chiefs to decide whether their standard of pay and allowances for the next session was adequate. That was prime business.
But how much detailed legislation that affects the individual in the street, shop or place of work is considered there? How much of it hits the headlines? How much of it appears to be of any consequence to warrant mentioning? Of course, that suits those who want to concentrate on the necessity of reforming European—and even domestic—political institutions and claim that that will solve the trouble. But in the meantime, regulations that go over the heads or under the heels of Select Committees are going straight onto the British statute book on the mere initial of a senior civil servant, without our even knowing about it. That is happening now.
So the fault lies with us. The solution does not lie in agreeing to new institutions, by whatever grandiose name they are called, that meet in the hotels of Brussels one night and possibly devote a couple of hours to discussing incomprehensible business the next, leading to the provision of extra secretarial services, food, entertainment and everything else. That is not the way to improve our position.
Surprisingly enough, although much has been said by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, I am glad to be able to draw attention to the often forgotten Foreign Office. In reinforcement of some of the arguments raised this afternoon, I shall cite one or two apposite quotations from the response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the suggestion of a second parliamentary chamber. I refer to document E/01-02/55 from Session 2001-02. What did the Foreign Office say? I trust that when my noble friend Lord Grocott replies he will do nothing to disturb the obvious amity that exists between the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister.
- "Our conclusion overall is that the dual mandate involving national parliamentarians in a second chamber that was busy enough to justify its existence would play so onerous a burden on an individual parliamentarian that, in reality, it would not be possible to do both jobs effectively".
- "The main home of the national parliamentarians would continue to be in their capital. It is vital, if their role is to inject a greater sense of public priorities, that they remain fully engaged in national politics".
- "We wholeheartedly endorse the evidence that national parliaments must take their duty of scrutiny seriously and must insist on the full discharge by Ministers of their responsibilities in respect of Council decisions. This will involve an adequate and timely flow of information from governments to parliaments".
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |