Select Committee on European Union Thirty-Sixth Report


Chapter 4: Procedural developments and the evolution of the Committee's work

120.  The way that the Committee and its staff work with the Government and, to an increasing extent, the Commission and European Parliament, is crucial to the effectiveness of the Committee's scrutiny work and is constantly changing. Below, we outline some of the main developments in the Committee's working practices over the past year, and summarise events in COSAC, the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union. We also look ahead to further developments in 2007-08.

Scrutiny overrides

121.  A scrutiny 'override' occurs when the Government give agreement in the European Council or Council of Ministers to any EU proposal which is still held under scrutiny by the Select Committee or one of our Sub-Committees. The Committee takes all such overrides very seriously. The Scrutiny Reserve Resolution (see Appendix 2) states that a Minister committing an override: "should explain his reasons—

(a)  in every such case, to the European Union Committee at the first opportunity after reaching his decision; and

(b)  in the case of a proposal awaiting debate in the House, to the Houses at the opening of the debate on the Committee's Report".[53]

122.  We publish in each Annual Report data on the number of overrides that occur. The tables printed below list scrutiny overrides which occurred between July and December 2006 and between January and June 2007, according to a combination of Government and our own records. The number of overrides we record differs slightly from the number recorded by the Government; this is usually due to differences in attitude to General Approaches (para 127) and the interpretation of the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution. Our staff are working with the Government to review these records.

123.  Figures are sorted according to whether overrides occurred because of documents being deposited with the Committee with insufficient notice before agreement was reached; and those that occurred when Ministers gave agreement to proposals which were still held under scrutiny by the Committee, often because the Committee had serious reservations about the proposal being made. We remind the Government that documents and Explanatory Memoranda must be deposited with sufficient time for scrutiny, and that the Committee must be kept informed about the progress of negotiations in Brussels, including when overrides have occurred. We recognise that negotiations sometimes move unexpectedly fast, especially in the fields of foreign relations and defence. In such circumstances it is important that the Committee receives as much information as possible, including where possible prior warning, and always including full explanation after the fact. We urge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to continue its ongoing and welcome efforts in this regard, and encourage the Government to make sure that best practice is the norm.

TABLE 2

Details of Lords scrutiny overrides July-December 2006
Dept
Subject matter
Cause of override
Notes
DCMSEuropean Capital of Culture 2010 Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited one week before agreement
DCMSThe "Citizens for Europe" programme to promote active European citizenship Document held under scrutiny at time of agreement
DCMSEstablishing the Culture 2007 programme (2007-13) Document held under scrutiny at time of agreement
DEFRAFishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited two weeks before agreement
DEFRAFishing catch limitations Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited one week before agreement
DEFRAGenetically modified oilseed rape products Document held under scrutiny at time of agreement
DEFRAElectronic recording and reporting of fishing activities and means of remote sensing Document held under scrutiny at time of agreement
DEFRASupervision and control of shipments of radioactive waste and nuclear spent fuel Document held under scrutiny at time of agreement
DFIDEuropean Investment Bank Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited after agreement
DFIDFood Aid Convention 1999 Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited after agreement
DTICommunity strategic guidelines on cohesion Failure to deposit document in good time Complicated by the summer recess
DTIGuidelines for trans-European energy networks Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited after agreement
DTIEC-Bulgaria Association Council Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited after agreement
DTIRules on nominal quantities for pre-packed products Document held under scrutiny at time of agreement
FCOEU-Azerbaijan Action Plan Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited after agreement
FCOEU-Armenia Action Plan Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited after agreement
FCOEU-Georgia Action Plan Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited after agreement
FCORestrictive measures in respect of Liberia Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited on same day as agreement
FCOThe participation of the Swiss Confederation in the EU military operation in support of the UN Organisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited after agreement
FCOThe International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Failure to deposit document in good time Complicated by the summer recess
FCORenewing restrictive measures against Uzbekistan Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited after agreement
FCOEU civilian-military supporting action to the African Union mission in the Darfur region of Sudan Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited after agreement
FCOATHENA mechanism for the common funding of ESDP military operations Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited after agreement
HMTAmending Budget No. 6 to the General Budget 2006 Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited after agreement

TABLE 3

Details of Lords scrutiny overrides January-June 2007
Dept
Subject matter
Cause of override
Notes
DTI/

BERR

Anti-dumping duty: footwear with uppers of leather Failure to deposit document in good time  
DTI/

BERR

Anti-dumping measures: frozen strawberries Failure to deposit document in good time  
FCOEU military operation in support of the UN Organisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited after agreement
FCOPartnership and Co-operation Agreement between the EC and the Ukraine Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited on same day as agreement
FCOThe financing of the common costs of EU operations having military or defence implications (ATHENA) Failure to deposit document in good time EM deposited after agreement
HealthPrevention of injury and the promotion of safety Document held under scrutiny at time of agreement  
HMTHarmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Document held under scrutiny at time of agreement  
HOFramework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia Document held under scrutiny at time of agreement The Government agreed to a General Approach
HOCouncil Decision on the stepping up of cross-border co-operation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime Document held under scrutiny at time of agreement  

124.  The statistics printed below show the number of overrides as a percentage of the newly deposited proposals covered by the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution. Overrides can occur in respect of documents which were deposited for scrutiny in a six-month period prior to those shown below (for example, an override can occur between July and December 2006 in the case of a document deposited between July and December 2005). Because of this, there is no direct link between the number of overrides in one six-month period and the documents deposited and held under the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution in the same six-month period; the percentage figure is therefore purely illustrative, and is designed to show the overrides in proportion to the widely different 'deposit rates' of the different departments. These records are also under review.

TABLE 4

Overrides statistics for July-December 2006
Dept
Number of overrides due to failure to deposit documents in good time
Number of overrides due to documents being held under scrutiny
Total number of overrides
Number of newly deposited legislative proposals scrutinised (i.e. covered by the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution)
Total overrides as a % of newly deposited documents covered by the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution
DCMS
1
2
3
3
100 %
DEFRA
2
3
5
61
8 %
DFID
2
0
2
9
22 %
DTI
3
1
4
56
7 %
FCO
9
0
9
45
20 %
HMT
1
0
1
28
4 %
All other Depts
0
0
0
68
0 %
Total for all Depts
18
6
24
270
9 %

TABLE 5

Overrides statistics for January-June 2007
Dept
Number of overrides due to failure to deposit documents in good time
Number of overrides due to documents being held under scrutiny
Total number of overrides
Number of newly deposited legislative proposals scrutinised (i.e. covered by the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution)
Total overrides as a % of newly deposited documents covered by the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution
DTI/ BERR
2
0
2
55
4 %
FCO
3
0
3
54
6 %
Health
0
1
1
3
33 %
HMT
0
1
1
79
1 %
HO
0
2
2
29
7 %
All other Depts
0
0
0
116
0 %
Total for all Depts
5
4
9
336
3 %

125.  According to the figures made available by the Government in previous years, and this year's combination of Government records and our own, the number of overrides committed per year has, overall, been declining since we began publishing data on overrides. Table 6 and Figure 1, below, show the downward trend. This trend is welcome, although we are concerned about the number of overrides committed in the second half of 2006, especially given that two Chairman's sifts were conducted during the summer recess. Our staff will review these figures with government officials in light of experience of the 2007 summer recess, when data are available, to ensure that all necessary administrative steps are in place.

TABLE 6

Overrides of the Scrutiny Reserve in the Lords since January 2003
Period covered
Total number of Lords scrutiny overrides
Jan-June 03
30
July-Dec 03
34
Jan-June 04
13
June-Dec 04
20
Jan-June 05
28
Jul-Dec 05
17
Jan-June 06
14*
Jul-Dec 06
24
Jan-June 07
9

The Committee began publishing scrutiny override figures in late 2003.

This period includes a General Election, during which Committees cannot conduct business.

* This figure has been reduced by one override after a correction to the Government's figures.

FIGURE 1

Overrides of the Scrutiny Reserve in the Lords since January 2003

The Scrutiny Reserve Resolution: a cautionary tale

126.  The Scrutiny Reserve Resolution states that "No Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council" to any proposal which has not yet completed scrutiny.[54] Accordingly, noting that the proposal was still held under scrutiny in the Lords and explicitly to avoid a scrutiny override, the Government voted against a draft agreement on the readmission to the Ukraine of illegal immigrants in June 2007, knowing that the agreement would be passed by the votes of the other Member States. Given that the Government had expressed support of the measure, given that the Committee also supported the proposal[55], and given the harm to UK-Ukraine relations that could have resulted, we believe that this is just as much to be condemned as voting in favour of a proposal which has yet to clear scrutiny and which may not be supported by the Committee. The Government should, instead, have submitted an EM in sufficient time for scrutiny.

General Approaches

127.  We reiterate that we consider the reaching of General Approaches in Council negotiations as 'agreement', and that the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution applies to such cases—in other words, if a Minister agrees to a General Approach in Council before scrutiny has been completed, a scrutiny override is committed. Following the report by the Commons European Scrutiny Committee in which that Committee took the same line, we encourage the Government to review its position and to consider General Approaches as covered by the Scrutiny Reserve Resolution.[56]

Delays to the Committee's scrutiny

128.  In the Committee's Report "Review of Scrutiny of European Legislation" (2002), the Committee stated: "We will expect responses from Ministers within ten working days to letters sent by our chairman on behalf of the Committee and Sub-Committees".[57] We remind the Government that they stated in their Response: "The Government agrees that it is unacceptable for letters to go unanswered for long periods. We shall strive to respond to letters from the chairman within ten working days."[58]

129.  Sub-Committee E, in particular, often experiences significant delays in correspondence. While many letters do receive a prompt reply, and some letters may not receive Ministerial replies for some time for understandable reasons, other delays could and should have been avoided. Some examples are:

  • Doc 7032/05: a Draft Interinstitutional agreement on the operating framework for the European Regulatory Agencies—letter to the Government of 12 October 2006 was replied to on 31 August 2007 (FCO)
  • Doc 14240/06: a Proposed Decision establishing the European Statistical Advisory Body—letter to the Government of 14 December 2006 still awaiting reply (HMT)
  • Doc 11243/06: a Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and Council on judicial training in the European Union—letter to the Government of 11 January 2007 still awaiting reply (DCA)

130.  Recent examples of significant delays in the correspondence of Sub-Committee F (Home Affairs) include:

  • Uniform residence permits: letter of 2 February 2007 was replied to on 24 May 2007 (three and a half months) (Home Office)
  • Rapid Border Intervention Teams: letter of 18 December 2006 was replied to on 5 May 2007 (five and a half months) (Home Office)
  • Returns Directive: letter of 2 November 2006 was replied to on 22 May 2007 (six and a half months) (Home Office)
  • Communication on Developing a Strategic Concept on Tackling Organised Crime: letter of 9 November 2005 was replied to on 13 July 2007 (20 months) (Home Office).

131.  A written question from Lord Jopling complaining about these delays (20 June 2007) and an intervention by the Earl of Listowel in an oral question from Lord Lucas (18 June 2007) led directly to the re-issuing of Cabinet Office guidelines on Corresponding with Scrutiny Committees, which reminded Government departments about the ten working day deadline. While we recognise that sometimes responding to complex queries may take longer, or that occasionally there may be no movement on a proposal for a protracted period, we remind the Government of their undertaking that in cases of "responding to complex matters [the Government] shall send a holding reply."[59]

Regulatory Impact Assessments

132.  The Committee takes scrutiny of regulatory impact assessments very seriously. Our Internal Market Sub-Committee and our Sub-Committee on Economic, Finance and Internal Trade in particular regularly review RIAs when attached to Explanatory Memoranda. The Select Committee will shortly be scrutinising new Commissions proposals for Better Regulation. We will review our procedure for scrutiny of RIAs.

Comitology

133.  The Committee pays close attention to significant scrutiny items being considered in European Parliament Committees. Sub-Committee B scrutinised an unnumbered EM on the draft Regulation to amend Regulation (EC) 622/2003, following the alleged terrorist plots to attack UK airlines in August 2006, which laid out new (unpublished) security requirements. These regulations were subject to the new comitology procedure, which had been in force since 23 July 2006.

134.  Sub-Committee D has examined a range of comitology proposals relating to the approval of genetically-modified products.

Government website for Explanatory Memoranda

135.  In our Annual Report 2006, we welcomed the Government's undertaking to establishing a dedicated website making publicly accessible all the Government's Explanatory Memoranda on EU proposals. We are pleased that this website has now been produced.[60] We draw this valuable resource to the attention of all Members interested in EU policy and of colleagues in other national parliaments.

Including fundamental rights analysis in Explanatory Memoranda

136.  In the spring and summer of 2007, the Committee and the Government reached an agreement according to which the Government will provide an analysis of the compliance with fundamental rights of every draft legislative proposal submitted for scrutiny, in the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) accompanying the proposal. Guidance agreed between the Committee's staff and the Government has now been circulated to the relevant Government officials. The Committee is grateful to the Government for agreeing to this helpful move. We will review the procedure after some experience of the new mechanism. We welcome the Government's undertaking to ensure that EMs will continue to be deposited within ten working days of the deposit of the proposals themselves, with fundamental rights analysis to follow if necessary, and we ask that the Government ensure that this standard is maintained.

References to the interests of the Devolved Administrations in Explanatory Memoranda

137.  Following a request by the Commons European Scrutiny Committee, Explanatory Memoranda will now state explicitly whether the Devolved Administrations have an interest in the issue covered by the EM and whether they have been consulted in the preparation of the EM. We welcome this development.

Working with the Commission

138.  The Committee and Sub-Committees welcome the opportunity to scrutinise the work of the European Commission. We frequently receive oral or written evidence from Commissioners or Commission officials for our inquiries; we are grateful for the Commission's assistance. Where appropriate, the Committee also submits evidence to the Commission's consultations; for example, the Committee prepared a substantial response to the Commission's Green Paper on public access to documents held by institutions of the European Community, which was sent to the Commission in July 2007. The Commission's Annual Report on its relations with national parliaments is published at Appendix 3.

COMMISSION RESPONSES TO THE COMMITTEE'S REPORTS

139.  In our 2006 Annual Report, we welcomed the Commission's commitment at the initiative of President Barroso to consider comments by national parliaments and its undertaking to respond in writing to such comments. We reiterate this welcome, and we thank the Commission for the encouraging start it has made. We understand that the Commission has received 138 opinions from 24 national parliaments on 67 proposals.[61] We have indicated to the Commission that we would monitor the responses the Committee receives from the Commission. So far, the following Reports have been officially sent to the Commission for a response.

TABLE 7

Reports sent to the Commission
Report title
Sent to the Commission
Response received?
The EU Strategy on Biofuels: from field to fuel
November 2006
April 2007
Financial Management and Fraud in the European Union: Perceptions, Facts and Proposals
November 2006
March 2007
Europe in the World
December 2006
May 2007
Rome III—choice of law in divorce
December 2006
March 2007
Television Without Frontiers?
February 2007
September 2007 (holding reply received May 2007)
Proposal to establish the European Institute of Technology: Interim Report
March 2007
June 2007
Proposal to establish the European Institute of Technology
July 2007
September 2007
Schengen Information System II (SIS II)
March 2007
June 2007
An EU Competition Court
April 2007
Awaited
"Improving the mental health of the population": can the European Union help?
April 2007
September 2007
Mobile Phone Charges in the EU: Curbing the Excesses
April 2007
May 2007
Modernising European Union labour law: has the UK anything to gain?
June 2007
September 2007
The Commission's Annual Policy Strategy for 2008
July 2007
October 2007
European Supervision Order
July 2007
Awaited

140.  We understand that the Commission has undertaken to respond to national parliamentary comments within three months. We encourage the Commission to reduce this to a period of two months, to bring it into line with the UK Government's undertaking for Report Responses.

141.  The Commission's commitment to responding to comments from national parliaments on any subject (not just concerns about subsidiarity or proportionality) is not included in the draft Reform Treaty. We would not want developments in the Reform Treaty regarding the roles of national parliaments to do away with this welcome initiative, and we ask the Commission to reiterate formally its undertaking in the context of the reformed Union.

COSAC

142.  COSAC (the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union) meets twice a year. The XXXVI COSAC meeting was held on 20-21 November 2006 in Helsinki, and the XXXVII COSAC meeting was held on 14-15 May 2007 in Berlin. Both were attended by Members of the Select Committee, and Lord Grenfell attended both COSAC Chairpersons' meetings.[62]

143.  At the XXXVI COSAC meeting (November 2007) 27 parliamentary chambers contributed to the subsidiarity and proportionality check on a Council Regulation regarding rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters. One third of participants found the Commission's proposal failed the test. Given that two thirds of participants were satisfied, it was proposed that parliaments needed to further develop a common understanding of these two principles.

144.  The Prime Minister of Finland, Mr Matti Vanhanen, outlined some of the Finnish Presidency's work. He also discussed the inclusion of Bulgaria and Romania in the Union. In the following debate some delegations advocated Treaty Reform as a precondition to further enlargement. Other delegations advocated avoiding presenting such criteria which applicant countries could have no control over.

145.  Commissioner Frattini discussed the mid-term review of the Hague Programme. Some delegations argued in favour of faster decision-making in Justice and Home Affairs whilst other described this as "cherry-picking" from the Constitutional Treaty. The Commissioner stated that the enlargement of the Schengen area to accession countries should be possible by the end of 2007. COSAC called on the Council to work on the problems of illegal and legal immigration together as a coherent strategy.

146.  The Chairman of the EU Affairs Sub-Committee of the International Affairs Committee of the Russian Duma spoke of EU-Russian co-operation and suggested prolonging the current Partnership and Co-operation Agreement. He advocated co-operation on nuclear proliferation, terrorism, environmental issues and illegal migration. In the following debate many delegations agreed on the need for EU solidarity in its dealings with Russia, particularly where trade disputes between Member States and Russia are concerned. Russia's record on climate change, civil society and freedom of the press were also discussed. COSAC agreed that any future negotiations should include questions of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

147.  COSAC called for the Commission to provide more detailed information on its proposals so that parliaments could better scrutinise proposals. COSAC also called for the Commission to work towards improving public access to documents.

148.  At the XXXVII COSAC meeting (May 2007) more work was agreed on subsidiarity and proportionality monitoring. The majority of parliaments found the two checks conducted so far useful.

149.  The State Secretary of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety gave an overview of EU climate change policy. There was discussion about the use of nuclear energy. Scepticism towards biofuels was also expressed. It was proposed that a new chapter on climate protection should be added to a new reforming treaty.

150.  Chancellor Angela Merkel gave a speech on the future of Europe expressing the basic values of the EU as peace, liberty, responsibility, justice, respect and tolerance.

151.  In discussing the Commission initiative on the direct transmission of documents to the national parliaments, the majority of delegations saw value in the new mechanism but it was suggested that it was too early to have a definite assessment of its real value. Several delegations suggested working towards analysing proposals at the earliest possible stages, e.g. at Green or White Paper stage. COSAC called on the Commission to respond to national parliaments' statements within two months and to react visibly if a number of parliaments raise similar concerns over a proposal. COSAC also encouraged delegations to upload findings of their work to the IPEX website. The importance of the Commission producing consultation documents in all official languages was stressed.

152.  The German Minister of State for Europe outlined three components of the EU's Eastern Policy: intensifying the European Neighbourhood Policy, developing the strategic partnership with Russia, and creating a Central Asia policy. In the following discussion several parliaments argued for the need for the European Neighbourhood Policy to be clarified as neither a 'waiting room' nor an alternative to EU membership. The policy should, however, be used to bring neighbouring states to a level politically and economically comparable with the EU. Although the complexity of relations with Russia was acknowledged, the need for a holistic approach to relations was stressed.

153.  Commissioner Wallström, Vice-President for Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy, gave an overview of the Annual Policy Strategy 2008. Although Commissioner Wallström welcomed the input of parliaments in the formulation of the Annual Policy Strategy, delegations asked for more information on the specific objectives of the Annual Policy Strategy.

154.  The XXXVIII COSAC meeting, held on 14-16 October 2007 in Lisbon discussed, among other matters: the IGC and Reform Treaty, a new subsidiarity and proportionality check, and the co-financing of the COSAC Secretariat.

155.  A scheme for co-financing the permanent member of the COSAC Secretariat was agreed. The expenses for the post would be shared between all participating parliaments with the salary paid by the seconding parliament itself.[63]

156.  COSAC debated the future of the EU with Commission President Barroso, Prime Minister Sócrates and the representatives of the European Parliament at the IGC. A debate was held on the EU Mediterranean Dimension.

157.  We commend the material on the COSAC website to all those interested in how scrutiny of the EU operates across the Member States.[64] The biannual reports in particular provide valuable material, notably the summary of scrutiny systems in the eighth biannual report.

Looking ahead to changes to our work in 2007-08

158.  In 2006-07, the Committee spent some time considering proposals for ways in which we can improve public awareness of the scrutiny role of the House and the Committee, following the publication of our Report "EU Legislation—Public Awareness of the Scrutiny Role of the House of Lords".[65] This work, and the reviews of working practices which will be involved, will be taken forward in the coming year. The Committee's staff will continue to review the role of the EU Documents Office, which is the centre for document management, queries and record-keeping for the Committee's staff, and will look at improving related internal systems.

159.  The year ahead will be an exciting and challenging time for EU scrutiny. If the Reform Treaty is presented for ratification we will contribute to that debate. Thereafter, if the Treaty is ratified, we will work to ensure that new powers for national parliaments are effectively implemented in the United Kingdom and that scrutiny of the EU and of our Government's role in agreeing EU policy continue to be strengthened.


53   The Scrutiny Reserve Resolution, as agreed in the House of Lords, 6 December 1999 (see Appendix 2). Back

54   The Scrutiny Reserve Resolution, as agreed in the House of Lords, 6 December 1999. Back

55   "Illegal Migrants: proposals for a Common EU returns policy" 32nd Report (Session 2005-06), HL Paper 166, para. 36. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeucom/166/166.pdf Back

56   "European enforcement order and the transfer of sentenced persons", Commons European Scrutiny Committee Report, 19th Report (2006-07), HC 41 xix (paras 3-26) http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmeuleg/41-xix/41xix.pdf Back

57   "Review of Scrutiny of European Legislation", 1st Report (2002-03), HL 15, p.34, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldeucom/15/15.pdf  Back

58   "Government Responses: Review of Scrutiny; Europol's role in fighting crime; and EU Russia relations", 20th Report (2002-03), HL 99 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldeucom/99/99.pdf Back

59   "Government Responses: Review of Scrutiny; Europol's role in fighting crime; and EU Russia relations", 20th Report (2002-03), HL 99 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldeucom/99/99.pdf Back

60   The website is available at http://europeanmemorandum.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/search.aspx. Back

61   Remarks made my Commission President Barroso to COSAC, Lisbon 15 October 2007. www.cosac.eu  Back

62   The Contributions agreed at these meetings are available at www.cosac.eu  Back

63   The House of Lords share will be no more than €2860 in any one financial year. Back

64   www.cosac.eu  Back

65   "EU Legislation-Public Awareness of the Scrutiny Role of the House of Lords", 32nd Report (2005-06), HL 179, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeucom/179/179.pdf  Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007