Appendix: Letter from Lord Grenfell, chairman
of the select committee on the european union, to the chairman
of the procedure committee
I write to you in my capacity as Chairman of the
European Union Committee about the arrangements made for debates
on Select Committee reports. Although my concern is primarily
with debates on reports from the European Union Committee, I have
shown this letter in draft to the Chairs of the other Select Committees
and have received expressions of support.
My letter is prompted by concerns in my own Committee
that existing arrangements could be made to work better; and by
the recommendations of the Leader's Group which the Procedure
Committee will be considering.
The Procedure Committee's discussion of this topic
is timely. The forthcoming UK Presidency of the EU (from July
2005) will mean that the House will want to devote a considerable
amount of time to holding the Government to account for the EU
legislation it seeks to agree. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary has
said, in a recent Command Paper,[4]
"The British negotiating hand is stronger when it is clear
that it reflects the concerns of Parliament". In addition,
a number of EU Committee reports will be ready for debate in the
coming months. For these reasons, now is the time for the House
to enhance the arrangements made to debate EU Committee reports.
The Leader's Group's report makes two recommendations
regarding debates on reports:
1) That Committees should be "rigorous"
in deciding which reports they recommend for debate;
2) That the Chairmen of Committees should be offered
the option of having reports debated "in the Moses Room".
After dealing with these two points I make one further
suggestion that I hope the Committee will consider in deciding
how to take forward the Leader's Group's report.
On the first point, it is my judgement that Committees
are already very rigorous in determining which reports should
be debated. And in the case of the EU Committee, such selectivity
extends further than merely deciding whether or not a debate should
be held. We debate some reports in the dinner hour as Unstarred
questions and some on Fridays, neither of which can be considered
prime time but both of which are certainly eminently suited to
some of our reports. We are also willing to hold debates jointly
with related motions.
The case for even further rigour in the Leader's
Group report seems to be based on an analysis of the numbers of
Peers attending debates on reports. Many categories of business
in the House attract varying levels of attendance and I do not
believe that an argument based on numbers takes us very far. It
is the importance of the subject matter and the quality of the
contributions that really matter.
In deciding whether a report ought to be debated,
my Committee accordingly already takes account of the significance
of the matter. We do so against the background that a considerable
volume of our law emerges from the EU, and there are often no
- or very limited - opportunities for the House to debate or change
subsequent secondary legislation implementing that law. There
is thus a strong argument that debates on EU Committee reports
on legislative instruments fulfil a significant constitutional
function in allowing this House its only real opportunity to influence
the negotiating position of our Government in Council - a fact
acknowledged by the Foreign Secretary as quoted above.
A related argument is that of transparency. Given
the strongly held views on European Affairs held on all sides
of the House, would the House really welcome the work of its European
Committee going all but un-scrutinised in the Chamber?
For these reasons, I do not believe that the House
would expect my Committee to be too selective in recommending
reports for debate, and that the balance is in fact about right
as it stands.
I should add that, as the Procedure Committee will
be aware, when my Committee recommends a report for debate it
is only by holding such a debate that the Government can lift
the parliamentary scrutiny reserve. This provides a strong and
effective check on the work of Ministers. I am sure that a call
for greater selectivity in debates is in no way motivated by a
desire to reduce the inconvenience that this House's Scrutiny
Reserve no doubt places on the government of the day.
I turn now to the suggestion that reports might be
debated in the Moses Room. For several reasons, my Committee is
strongly of the view that Committee reports should not be debated
in Grand Committee. I leave aside for the moment the possibility
that such a debate might not constitute a lifting of the scrutiny
reserve. That is a matter which the Procedure Committee will have
to consider. Unless a Moses Room debate does lift the scrutiny
reserve, then further proceedings on the Floor will be needed.
Perhaps more significantly, if the House values the
work of the Committees it establishes, and on which we have a
queue of members waiting to serve, then the House itself deserves
the opportunity to debate the reports of that work. In addition,
arguments about transparency (as set out above) argue against
this option. In this context I note that the Leader's Group have
concluded that proceedings in the Moses Room should not even be
televised (paragraph 22). Would the House really accept that European
affairs be debated, and the House's own position determined, in
such a secretive way?
For these reasons, the Moses Room is not an option
for Committee debates. In our view, the real argument arising
from the use of Grand Committee is that, given the volume of legislation
now being taken in that procedure, there ought to be a greater
amount of time available for the House to conduct other business
on the floor including debates on Committee reports. The Leader's
Group appears to accept (paragraph 27) that this has been difficult
to achieve. That is perhaps the real mischief which the Procedure
Committee may wish to investigate.
Against this background, I make one practical suggestion
for changing the House's arrangements of business to provide further
opportunities for debate on Committee reports. This would be in
addition to existing arrangements including occasional "prime
time" debates, Unstarred questions and Fridays, all of which
work well and which have been applied with goodwill and flexibility
on all sides. The aim of my proposal is to build an additional
element of regularity and predictability into the availability
of time for debates on Committee reports.
At present, one Wednesday a month (till June) is
set aside for two balloted debates of two and a half hours each.
We propose that the 5 hour period be extended to 6 hours; and
that on each occasion there be three time-limited debates of two
hours each, two balloted and one on a Committee report. The order
of the three debates would also be chosen by ballot. In my view,
this would not significantly diminish backbench rights.
I invite the Procedure Committee to consider this
suggestion and I look forward to our discussion.
14 October 2004
4 Update on Prospects for the EU in 2004, Cm 6310 September
2004, Foreward Page 4. Back
| 
