An International Relations
Committee
Background
1. A number of members of the House have called
for the establishment of a cross-cutting international relations
sessional committee. Most recently, in March 2015, following comments
made during a debate on the floor of the House about the Liaison
Committee's Report on ad hoc Committee activity in Session
2015-16, Lord Howell of Guildford tabled a question for written
answer on this subject, and the then Chairman of Committees replied
that he would "invite the [Liaison] Committee to consider
how best to seek the views of Members on the future shape of Select
Committee activity".
2. At its meeting on 8 June the Liaison Committee
agreed that its members should seek the views of Members of their
own political parties and, in the case of the Convenor, the Crossbench
peers, by the end of June 2015 to inform their decisions on the
following questions:
· Is
a sessional International Relations Committee the main priority
for Committee activity not presently exercised?
· If yes,
should it be an additional unit of committee activity, or should
it replace an existing committee from the start of the 2016-17
session?
3. Liaison Committee members reported a range
of views from various Members on this issue. Arguments in favour
of a sessional international relations committee included:
· That
there is a need for an authoritative, analysis-based consideration
of current and long-standing issues in international affairs and
to produce reports;
· That
the Lords should have a voice on issues wider than the EU;
· That
a sessional committee with continuing members could be more nimble
in responding to developments and flexible in arranging follow-up
activities.
4. Conversely, other members argued that a series
of ad hoc committees, with changing membership, was better
placed to complement the wide range of subjects covered on the
floor of the House and to allow a larger number of members to
participate in in-depth scrutiny of international relations than
would be the case with a sessional committee with a fixed membership.
This was considered important given the very wide-ranging nature
of this field and the many members of the House with considerable
expertise in international relations matters.
5. There was also concern about the potentially
high cost of an international relations committee, particularly
in relation to travel, given the importance of spending public
money wisely.
6. One point of broad agreement was that the
creation of a sessional international relations committee should
be on the basis of it being an additional unit of committee activity
rather than consuming the resources of one of the successors of
the four current ad hoc committees.
Consideration
7. There has been a range of views across the
House, and this matter has been debated by members over a long
period. The time has come to reach for the way forward. The
Committee recommends the establishment of an International Relations
Committee at the start of the 2016-17 session. This will be subject
to a review of all committees which will be undertaken in the
2017-18 session (see below).
8. We envisage a total of four ad hoc
Committees being appointed in the 2016-17 and 2017-18 sessions
(the same number as in the present session).
9. In broad terms the average annual cost of
a select committee is £225k. The Committee Office has continued
to make significant savings, chiefly due to the reduction in the
printing of evidence, which is now published online, and despite
running the two additional units of ad hoc committee activity
agreed by the House during the last Parliament. We invite the
House Committee, in drawing up the House's financial plan, to
consider whether any additional budget required by the Committee
Office for this purpose should be offset by savings in other areas.
10. In considering the membership of the International
Relations Committee, the Committee of Selection should include
members with a range of experience.
THE EU SUB- COMMITTEE ON EXTERNAL
AFFAIRS
11. The EU Sub-Committee on External Affairs
scrutinises EU documents and policies relating to foreign affairs
(including external relations between the EU and non-EU countries,
as well as relations between the EU and other international organisations);
defence (including EU military and civilian operations outside
the EU); international trade and international development aid.
Recent inquiries have considered the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership, the EU's External Action Service, EU-funded water
and sanitation projects in Sub-Saharan Africa, and piracy in Somalia.
The Committee also holds one-off evidence sessions on high-profile
topical matters, which in recent years have included taking evidence
on the EU-Iran Interim Agreement, EU restrictive measures and
the EU and Syria. We recommend an agreement with the EU Committee
on the boundaries between the EU Committee's activities, particularly
those of its Sub-Committee on External Affairs, and the International
Relations Committee.
THE STRUCTURE OF COMMITTEE ACTIVITY
12. Many of those who commented expressed the
view that members should be invited to consider a range of options
for increased Committee activity, rather than only being asked
whether a sessional international relations committee was the
main priority for committee activity not presently exercised.
13. The Liaison Committee keeps the structure
of committee activity under regular review, and reported on this
structure in each session of the 2010-15 Parliament. We intend
to continue this practice. Additionally, we propose a full review
of the Committee work of the House, to take place during the 2017-18
session, with a view to rationalising Committee activity.
14. We commend this Report to the House.
Summary of Conclusions
and Recommendations
1. The Committee recommends the establishment
of an International Relations Committee at the start of the 2016-17
session. This will be subject to a review of all committees which
will be undertaken in the 2017-18 session. (Paragraph 7)
2. We envisage a total of four ad hoc
Committees being appointed in the 2016-17 and 2017-18 sessions
(the same number as in the present session). (Paragraph 8)
3. We invite the House Committee, in drawing
up the House's financial plan, to consider whether any additional
budget required by the Committee Office for this purpose should
be offset by savings in other areas. (Paragraph 9)
4. In considering the membership of the International
Relations Committee, the Committee of Selection should include
members with a range of experience. (Paragraph 10)
5. We recommend an agreement with the EU Committee
on the boundaries between the EU Committee's activities, particularly
those of its Sub-Committee on External Affairs, and the International
Relations Committee. (Paragraph 11)
6. The Liaison Committee keeps the structure
of committee activity under regular review, and reported on this
structure in each session of the 2010-15 Parliament. We intend
to continue this practice. Additionally, we propose a full review
of the Committee work of the House, to take place during the 2017-18
session, with a view to rationalising Committee activity. (Paragraph 13)
| 
