Civil Service: Digital Skills

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Baroness raises important points, and these are going to be debated a lot in the Online Safety Bill. In the Civil Service, we have a clear set of values—public service values. The Central Digital and Data Office is set up to look at how best to transform public services, but in a way that is appropriately balanced between using things such as AI and making sure that people’s rights and responsibilities are protected. We have the Data Protection Act and the Information Commissioner’s Office to help us in that process.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, having been at one stage a civil servant colleague of the current Minister, and declaring my interest as someone who went on to become a Minister and who has a daughter who has taken the same path from one to the other, I ask if we could have a gentle assurance that the Minister will use her best endeavours to ensure that these healthy disciplines are extended to Members of His Majesty’s Government as well. If they understand what civil servants are talking about, they can challenge it and produce a better overall conclusion.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see the noble Lord in his place; I congratulate him on his return and on his daughter’s eminence. The answer is that of course Ministers need to be educated in digital and data matters as well. We are doing our own small part in the Cabinet Office by ensuring that the induction that Ministers are given on security, for example, has a suitable data element. There is the broader point of what data can bring to growth and science. I earlier referenced the new department, DSIT, which is symptomatic of the change that we are trying to make in government to think more of AI, the cloud and data. To go back to the noble Baroness’s point, we are also trying to make sure that we are thinking about people and values at the same time.

Beyond Brexit (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

That the Virtual Proceedings do consider the Report from the European Union Committee Beyond Brexit: How to Win Friends and Influence People (35th Report, Session 2017–19, HL Paper 322).

The Motion was considered in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is more than a year since this report was published, since when the world has changed beyond recognition. The pandemic has compelled us to reset financial and social policies and has driven reappraisal of our nation’s place among and beyond its immediate neighbours.

Even before it struck, we had in some sense resolved our national political crisis about Brexit. Just as our committee was reporting in March last year, Britain was forced to extend the departure date; this was followed by a change of Prime Minister, involved recasting the withdrawal agreement, and then saw the election of a Government with a clear majority and a mandate to get Brexit done. This report, which focuses on how the UK can maximise its influence with the EU post Brexit, is now being debated after we have formally left the EU but while the terms of our future relationship are still to be settled.

I retain in all this, I hope, some sense of proportion, yet there have been other domestic changes that set the context for this debate. It marks a coda personally, as I have retired from the chair of the EU Committee after more than seven years; and I am very grateful to the new chair, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—if I may say, an admirable choice by this House—for his courtesy in inviting me to take the lead on this, my last bow. At the same time, I would like to thank members of the committee across the House for their dedication to, and expertise in, objective scrutiny, matched by the contribution of our excellent committee staff and, of course, our many diplomatic, official, academic and policy interlocutors. I would like in particular to thank the Senior Deputy Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, both for his careful work in reviewing our committee structures in the changed situation and for the contribution he made by convening the Interparliamentary Forum on Brexit, which has helped to develop mutual sympathy and understanding with the devolved legislatures. Finally, I welcome the presence of the Minister and of the many noble Lords who will contribute.

On re-reading the report, I have been struck by the sheer complexity of the process of disengagement set out in the withdrawal instruments and summarised in our Appendix 2. Not least among these are the most sensitive issues concerning Northern Ireland, where there were significant modifications in the revised protocol agreed after our report, but where there is still no agreement on how it will be implemented, partly because of the pandemic.

The report focuses on three main areas: first, the formal mechanisms for UK-EU engagement set out in the withdrawal agreement, notably the joint committee and the specialised committees that report to it; secondly, less formal mechanisms for engagement, including the UK’s potential participation in the work of EU agencies and programmes, the role of the UK Mission to the EU, now known as UKMis, and other UK offices and organisations in Brussels; and thirdly, the matter of interparliamentary engagement, which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will also touch on.

Whatever view one might take of any extension to the transition period, the pandemic coupled with the Government’s oft-stated distaste for any extension have compressed the timetable, and we now have fewer than 50 days before the June summit deadline. There is a need to clarify the arrangements applicable until the end of this calendar year, and their relationship with those that will follow, which the Government have indicated will depend on the structure of any future relationship. To date, the public have seen remarkably little effect from our formal withdrawal, and the pandemic has left little bandwidth in government to focus on the issues. These include governance and management of the remaining period of transition and, crucially the shape of any future relationship as it affects both trade and institutions. It would be very helpful if the Minister could today give us an appraisal of progress made in the talks, in spite of deadlines and the physical difficulties of communication, both in respect of trade and wider issues, with perhaps also an indication about how UKMis is working and ensuring that the collective UK voice and interests are represented in Brussels.

An important chapter in the report deals with the role of parliamentarians themselves. Over 50 years ago, long before I entered Parliament, I first visited the then EEC in Brussels. I was described at the time, rather generously, as “un expert anglais”, and I have been in and out of various European institutions and settings frequently ever since. Of course, parliamentarians are rarely inclined to take a unified position—it is through their divergence of view and diversity of experience that they make their distinctive contribution—but we all need to remain alert to all the opportunities for influence, networking and even simple personal friendships that will remain open to us.

This is no time to burn bridges or haul up the drawbridge. While for now we all understand that social distancing is important, conscious political self-isolation will never be a long-term goal. We must look to all aspects of our international relationships, both in Europe and wider afield. The pandemic reminds us that just as no man is an island, so our island nation, now rebranded as “Global Britain”, is built and thrives on constructive economic and political relationships.

As is typical in the immediate aftermath of a divorce, relations with the EU are frankly tense and difficult at the moment, and may stay that way for some time to come. But geography means that we will always be neighbours, with centuries of complex shared history. At some stage—the sooner the better—the current tensions and disagreements will dissipate and a new relationship will need to be forged. Both sides will need to work hard to rebuild it. The onus is on our Parliament to play its part, and I am confident that this House, not least through the skill and dedication of its continuing EU Committee, will continue to do so. In that spirit, and conscious that many other noble Lords wish to contribute, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, briefly and in conclusion, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and for their personal kindness towards me. I also thank the Minister for his efforts to respond to the debate within the constraints of time. All I would say to him and to other Members of the Government in the present circumstances is, “Don’t close your minds. Remember that there is no stigma in being flexible and pragmatic in order to meet the interests of the country.” Perhaps I will leave it at that.

It has been the case, as it has through the debate, that complex EU structures, including its legal structures, and the protracted nature of the Brexit debates that we have had over the past four years, have been centred on detailed issues. As has been mentioned, our report went into some of those detailed implementation issues. Yet beyond that, the current exceptional circumstances drive us to some reappraisal of our strategic priorities. I noted with approval a recent article in the Times by the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, commenting simply and powerfully:

“Strong international relations are vital to our security and success.”


I hope that we can all agree on that.

I am proud in this case of the EU Committee’s role in taking our strategic thinking beyond Brexit. The answer for this country lies not in some retreat into what I might call national lockdown, but in attention and commitment to continuing international engagement. As the debate has made clear, we have all the circumstances of the pandemic and issues of climate change, and we could perhaps have said more about their interaction in the position of developing countries and the ongoing impact on migration, for example. There is a huge international agenda out there on which we must not turn our backs.

As we reflect this week on the lessons of the Second World War, which led to the foundation of what became the European Union, we must leave ourselves space to rise to the occasion, and in doing so with other partners across the world perhaps play our proper part in making the world a better place. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

European Union Subsidiarity Assessment: Electoral Law of the EU (EUC Report)

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a member of the European Union Select Committee. Unfortunately, I was not present at the Select Committee’s discussion of this proposal; if I had been, I would have said some of the things I am going to say now.

I, of course, do not in any way apologise for, accept, or try to defend what appear to have been administrative mistakes in not sending documents in time to this Parliament or to the Tweede Kamer in the Netherlands; I know nothing about that. Clearly, if people have been remiss in not meeting deadlines, they should be held to account. I totally agree with my noble friend’s comments on that point. However, I am much more concerned with the substantive point she makes, and particularly with the second resolution, which I oppose in principle. I hope that I will have a chance to vote against it but I do not suppose that I will. However, I certainly do not want it said that it went through this House without any voice of dissent at all.

In the Motion before your Lordships, the second resolution says that this proposal of the European Parliament should be set aside on the ground of subsidiarity. It seems to me that any democratic parliament worthy of its name is accountable to its own electorate. Any democratic parliament worthy of its name is responsible, and should be responsible, for its own rules and procedures. It should not be beholden to any organisation outside. It should not be under the command of any outside authority or it is not a democratic parliament. In this case, of course, the European Parliament was set up by the member states through the treaty—we all know that. All parliaments, by definition, have to be set up by somebody other than themselves. This Parliament, which we have the honour to serve, was set up by kings of England—Edward I and subsequent monarchs—who summoned it. That does not mean to say that we expect the monarch or, indeed, the politically elected Executive branch—the Prime Minister or the Cabinet—to fix our rules of procedure or our methods of operation. It would be scandalous for anybody to suggest that and everybody would quite rightly think that that was a threat to the democratic independence of this House. No one has, of course, ever suggested that.

On that basis, it is perfectly reasonable that the European Parliament should make its own proposals for its own future procedures, including for its own electoral system. That is totally right, and it is right that it should do it. Above all, the application of the subsidiarity principle against its doing so seems to me entirely absurd. Of course, only the European Parliament is in a position to judge the functionality of any set of rules or procedures in relation to itself. To ask 28 different national parliaments to make their judgment is crazy. It would probably take 1,000 years for them all to agree on the rules to be adopted and they would not be in a position to assess the functionality and merits of any proposals of that kind in the way that people sitting in the European Parliament would be able to do. Therefore, on both pragmatic grounds and grounds of principle, I oppose this resolution. The principle of subsidiarity—indeed, my noble friend has just cited that principle—deems that matters should be decided at the European Union level only when they cannot be better decided at the level of the member states. I think I have said enough to indicate that this matter certainly could not be effectively decided at the level of the member states—that would be an absurdity. It must be decided at the centre by the European Parliament itself. On that basis, I oppose the second resolution.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the report which her sub-committee prepared for my EU Select Committee. I echo her words of thanks to members of that committee and to the excellent staff in drawing this together. It will already be clear from the exchanges that this is an interesting and, to some extent, unprecedented, coincidence in matters connected with process and substance. What we have heard so far has clearly shown deficiencies in a procedure in which, in fairness to the European Parliament—to which I will return in a moment—it has relatively new experience as a co-legislator. Therefore, we can perhaps condone the explanation relating to fault for this matter, although we should not allow it to go unchallenged.

I was not minded to speak in this debate—and will do so only briefly—had it not been for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford. He and I have known each other for quite a long time. I have huge respect for him and very much enjoy and value his contributions to our Select Committee. As he rightly said, he was not available on the relevant occasion. However, it would have been more helpful had he shared his concerns and dissent with the chairman of the sub-committee and/or myself. With pre-notification, I am sure that we would have done our best not to warn him off but at least to have seen whether we could accommodate those concerns or reflect them in our report. As noble Lords present who have had experience of negotiation will know, we are in the position where in effect a late card has been played and it is a little difficult to handle it at this stage.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I apologise for any discourtesy but, as soon as I saw this resolution on the Order Paper, I mentioned to my noble friend my opposition to it and invited her to make any comments that she wished to make. She made no comments to me on that occasion and I therefore assumed that she did not wish to have a discussion with me on the subject, but I would have been delighted to do so.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, we are now, as it were, in the Chamber and we need to take the argument as it goes. However, for the avoidance of doubt—I hope this reassures the chair of the sub-committee—if any noble Lord is minded to take the temperature of the House, I am very much inclined to defend the sub-committee’s recommendation. I put that on the record.

However, let us take that as past. I add two other points. We have a Motion for a reasoned opinion. We have good reasons for asking for that. Indeed, we made it clear in the report we prepared some years ago for your Lordships’ House on the role of national parliaments—that has already been touched on in relation to the current European negotiations—that a reasoned opinion deserves a reasoned response. In entering a reasoned opinion we seek to enter a dialogue with, and gain an explanation from, the European Parliament, not with the purpose of subverting this move but of getting it into the right order with the right conclusion—no more and no less than that.

That leads me to my final point. When we debated this matter in the Select Committee, I was concerned to make it clear to its members that I would not like it to be seen as an oblique or indirect attack on the European Parliament itself. Some people in these Chambers seek to downplay the role of the European Parliament and even, occasionally, to question its legitimacy. I do not share that view. My view of parliamentary sovereignty is that it is better to have two levels of application and scrutiny than only one. I think that we have a joint and complementary role. I would not claim any great virtue in it but I have laboured long and hard to try to dispel any illusion that we are in any sense at war with Members of the European Parliament and its leadership. This is, I hope, a friendly discussion about procedure and a slightly more substantive one about the levels at which we take this argument forward. It is not a declaration of war or an attempt to create difficulty. I very much commend our report to the House.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, I had not planned to speak in this debate but the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, provoked me to add my tuppence worth. I should clarify to the House that I speak in my capacity as the chairman of another sub-committee of the EU Select Committee—the sub-committee on financial affairs. It is true that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, holds original, interesting and enormously important views, from which certainly my sub-committee benefits every week—week in and week out—and we are very grateful for his presence there.

I, too, was not present when this matter was discussed and when I saw it on the Order Paper I took it upon myself to find out what it was about. I came to the view that—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the chairman of the EU Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, have said—it was not a provocative gesture but the utilisation of a mechanism that has been hard fought for by this Parliament. This mechanism should improve dialogue and make us co-operate better, because it is an early warning system. It allows us to say, “Hang on, there is an issue here and we need to discuss it”.

I am slightly disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, did not suggest to me that he had opinions on this. I would, of course, have fed them into discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. Speaking only for myself, but as a member of the EU Select Committee, I absolutely support the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.

National Parliaments (EUC Report)

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on The Role of National Parliaments in the European Union (9th Report, Session 2013–14, HL Paper 151).

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this is not just a debate about a Select Committee report, or about internal parliamentary processes. It is also by extension a debate about the future of the European Union and the United Kingdom’s relationship with it, so I am delighted that so many noble Lords are here to debate this vital issue.

Today, Europe faces huge, almost existential problems, and the economic crisis has thrown the deficiencies of the Treaty of Lisbon into stark relief. Growing disenchantment and disillusionment with the EU is evident in the continuing fall in participation in elections to the European Parliament, the rise in extremist parties across Europe, and the lack of trust between elected officials and their electorate. The question of democratic legitimacy now needs serious public debate so that the people of Europe can contribute to finding an answer. This is not just a crisis of public confidence in the Union, it is also a crisis of public confidence in politics more generally. Not every vote for UKIP is in my view necessarily a vote to leave the European Union—often it may simply be a protest vote, a vote for “none of the above”. However, we will never succeed in overcoming the Europe-wide democratic deficit unless we also look at and address our own shortcomings. It is not “their” problem over in Brussels, it is also our problem here in Westminster.

Giving national parliaments a more positive and active role in European affairs is not a panacea, but it is a key component in addressing the European democratic deficit. That view is widely shared across Europe, and I pay particular tribute here to the work of our colleagues in the Dutch Tweede Kamer and the Danish Folketinget, which is highly consonant with our report. The European Commission and the United Kingdom Government have also given their support. The Commission has expressed enthusiasm for better engagement with national parliaments as a natural extension of the existing political dialogue. The new Commission First Vice-President, Frans Timmermans, is particularly supportive, and his enhanced role within the new Commission overseeing relations with national parliaments and the issues of subsidiarity and proportionality, is very much to be welcomed.

The problem is in moving beyond easy generalities and warm words. Underlying the general agreement that national parliaments should have a greater role, there are many different political perspectives. Some in the European Commission may see strengthening national parliaments as a way to increase democratic control of the actions of national Governments in the Council of Ministers. In statements by Her Majesty’s Government, their emphasis on national parliaments sometimes acquires a tinge of slightly Eurosceptic flavour, while at the other end of the spectrum, some in the European Parliament fear that proposals to increase the role of national parliaments may simply undermine their own authority. There are also significant practical organisational problems in mobilising national parliaments to action. Against that backdrop, perhaps it is not surprising that whenever it comes to taking specific and concrete action, everything suddenly seems too difficult.

We on the European Union Committee of your Lordships’ House are acutely aware of these problems as we battle to make progress on several fronts at once. On the domestic front, we confront growing deficiencies in Her Majesty’s Government’s handling of parliamentary scrutiny. There is no point in the Government professing to support an enhanced role for national parliaments if they have neither the will nor the capacity to submit their own actions in Europe to proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Last week, the committee took evidence from the Minister for Europe, David Lidington, and I listed a series of failures by various departments over recent months. I will not repeat myself now, but instead and I hope for the last time, I will touch briefly on parliamentary scrutiny of the United Kingdom’s justice and home affairs opt-out. I described this sorry saga at length during our last debate on 17 November. All that I will add tonight is that the Home Office, having consistently failed to abide by its obligations under the scrutiny process, capped it off last week by refusing our request for an oral Statement explaining the scrutiny overrides that took place on 1 December, and then failing even to publish a proper Written Statement. Instead, the department tried to sneak its explanation in under the radar as an annexe to a Statement on the unrelated Justice and Home Affairs Council on 4 December.

I trust that the Minister, as a former chairman of our Home Affairs Sub-Committee, will understand my concern over those events. Will he confirm in his reply that the first essential step towards strengthening the United Kingdom Parliament’s role in the EU is for the Government to do everything in their power to support effective domestic parliamentary scrutiny of European Union matters? I hope also that he will set out for the House some practical steps that the Cabinet Office, which he represents in this House, is taking to address its own shortcomings, and which have been the subject of further correspondence. Put simply, the Government must get their own house in order first of all.

However, this is not just a government problem. The onus is also on us as a national legislature to make a more effective contribution to developments in Europe. We need to elevate the debate on the European Union, speaking with equal honesty about its benefits and its shortcomings. If we fail to do that, the risks are clear. I suspect that the leaders of the two main parties in this country may now be regretting their refusal to engage in a proper debate about United Kingdom membership of the European Union in the run-up to the European parliamentary elections earlier this year, as by so doing they effectively gifted control of the political agenda to UKIP. I might mention at this point that Her Majesty’s Government still refuse to acknowledge in print the democratic mandate of the European Parliament, even though meetings with individual Ministers suggest that the views of the Government are more nuanced than they are willing to admit publicly.

So much for the political background to tonight’s debate. For the remainder of my time, I shall touch on the efforts we are making in the European Union Committee to make progress in a few specific, targeted areas. The first of these is the reasoned opinion procedure. This is the only formal role in scrutinising European legislation given to national parliaments by the treaties, and as such it has an important symbolic value, but it can work only if there is good will on all sides, particularly within the European Commission. Hitherto, frankly, that good will has been lacking, and the Commission’s recent hasty, legalistic dismissal of the yellow card issued in respect of the proposed European Public Prosecutor’s Office was frankly and simply unacceptable.

We suggest in our report various ways in which the reasoned opinion procedure could be improved, without, we believe, the need for treaty change. These could include, for example, extending the deadline or reducing the threshold necessary for a yellow card to be issued. The essential point is that a yellow card should have a real impact, and be seen to have that impact. If a quarter of national parliaments feel strongly enough about a proposal to lodge reasoned opinions, then the Commission must sit up and take notice. It must undertake, if not formally to withdraw the proposal, then at least to amend it substantially. More generally, the Commission needs to be more open to dialogue with national parliaments. It must be prepared to argue its case and, on occasion, change its mind. The new Commission has publicly undertaken to be more receptive to reasoned opinions, which is good news, but the real test, in practice, has yet to come.

A bigger challenge for national parliaments is to engage upstream, in the early stages of policy development, when there is the greatest potential to exercise influence. That is especially difficult in our system of parliamentary scrutiny as it is predicated on reviewing legislative proposals only after they have been formally adopted by the Commission. In effect, we are stuck in reverse, when what we really want is a forward gear.

The so-called green card, described in paragraphs 55 to 59 of our report, could offer us that forward gear. The idea is straightforward: a group of national parliaments should be able to come together to propose legislation to the Commission, and the Commission should undertake to consider and respond to such proposals.

I emphasise that a green card procedure would not necessarily mean more legislation, or yet more Euro-initiatives. It could mean the amendment or repeal of existing legislation. Indeed, my sense is that the current Commission would be much more likely to respond positively to proposals from national parliaments which supported, for example, its own REFIT programme to simplify European law and reduce regulatory burdens. That is also very much our Committee’s approach. The response to the green card idea has so far been positive. At the COSAC conference—that is, the conference of chairs of committees such as the one I represent in your Lordships’ House—in Rome earlier this month, there was widespread support for the concept.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

If there was repeal of legislation, could that include the repeal of something in the treaty?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

A treaty—I would be subject to advice—is, of course, concluded between member states and, although it is part of the constitution, it is not, by itself, part of the legislation. I think that if there were a widespread demand for a change in the treaty for good reason, that could certainly be taken forward as part of the political dialogue.

To return to COSAC, we met in Rome earlier this month and there was widespread support for a green card and a very positive attitude. More meetings are planned in the new year, at which we will explore in detail how a green card procedure might work in practice. We are also looking at other ways to encourage upstream dialogue between national parliaments and European policymakers. In particular, we need to focus more on scrutinising the Commission’s work programme. We know that President Juncker has promised a more politically responsive work programme, focusing on growth and jobs. We need to be engaged in developing and realising this. That means we need to be more agile, talking to the Commission, responding to consultations, building up alliances with colleagues in other national parliaments and the European Parliament, keeping in touch with our own Government, of course, and undertaking forward-looking inquiries.

Reconnecting the European Union with its citizens is not going to be easy. Nor is it going to be easy, over coming months, to defend the United Kingdom’s continuing role in the European Union. I believe passionately that finding practical ways to enhance the role of national parliaments—which are, by definition, close to their citizens—is an important component in our response to both these challenges. We need a new approach and a new way of working jointly with our partners. I and my colleagues on the European Union Committee will do our part, but I also look to Her Majesty’s Government to lead by example. They must show, by diligently respecting the scrutiny process as it affects the two Houses of this Parliament, that they genuinely embrace the involvement of Parliament in European Union law-making. This is now less a time for words and more a time for effective action. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, this has indeed been a full and excellent debate, and I am grateful to noble Lords’ for both their personal generosity to me and for their contributions which, without exception, would repay further reflection and study. I am also grateful to the Minister for his response, which was characteristically thoughtful. I was encouraged by two points. The first was at the end of his remarks, when he in a sense acknowledged that all was not quite well with the Cabinet Office or the Home Office. I might say in parenthesis that that is not always confined to those two departments, and I would be grateful if he would take an active interest in making sure that that practice improves. The second point was that a number of us, either explicitly or implicitly, had expressed concern about the status of national parliaments vis-à-vis the European Parliament. It is very good to get from a Minister on the record in this place that they both have a democratic legitimacy and a role to play. That is a very good start.

I do not want to speak at length but just to pick out brief points from the discussion. In how I cast my remarks, I was anxious that we should open our eyes to the situation in Europe. By “we” I mean not only ourselves as a national parliament chamber here but the European institutions as well. It is incumbent on us all to avoid being baffled or bamboozled by technical complexity. That is inevitable in an institution of 28 member states dealing with some complex and often outward-looking technical issues. However, we need to look at the real situation that is going on. In terms of the references that have been made to relevance to the real world, I would report to the House that the most interesting conversation that I have had in the past year was with a young lawyer in Athens representing the Green Syriza opposition, who was entirely balanced in comment but whose eloquence and sense of anger and resentment was powerful—and you take that kind of thing home.

That leads me to my second point, which is the business of co-operation between national parliaments. Almost all of us who are elected—although we are not in this Chamber—or who in any case have a sense of democratic or legislative responsibility, should naturally want to work together. That could be in a whole variety of flexible configurations, sometimes between the usual suspects—the larger countries—and sometimes in geographic, regional groupings, interest rate groupings, maritime states and states large and small. There are plenty of configurations in which that can be done. It does not require treaty change to bring it about; it is a matter of just learning the habit of co-operation, as we say in our report.

My final point is that we need to change gear in relation to the European debate. Whether people come to this from a Eurosceptic viewpoint or from a more positive viewpoint, as I think that most of us do in this House, it must be in everybody’s interests to have a serious debate. Some of the concerns, and some of the reasons why I have been critical of the Government, have been that I fear some of the motivation in these debates has been driven by an element of fear or even cynicism, hoping that some of the problems would go away, rather than a readiness to move, as we will have to in the forthcoming and unfolding political context, into constructive and positive engagement with the issues. That must surely be in the interests of all of us and the citizens who we claim and have a duty to represent.

The hour is late and I will not test your Lordships’ patience longer by prolonging my remarks. This is a very serious issue, on which we need to move from words to action. In that spirit, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

European Union Committee: Report on 2013-14 (EUC Report)

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

To move that this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on 2013-14 (1st Report, HL Paper 6)

[Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the report on the 2013-14 Session details the work of your Lordships’ European Union Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing. I am pleased to be discussing the work of our committee on the Floor of the House, especially as the committee has just passed the significant milestone of its 40th anniversary. I note that the late Lord Diamond—the first chairman of the Select Committee—when reporting to the House in 1974 on the first three months of its work and its members’ contribution thereto, stated that,

“your Lordships’ House is a veritable storehouse of wisdom, skills, and talents of a kind unimaginable”.—[Official Report, 7/11/74; col. 600.]

I can report with some confidence that that is still the case some four decades on. I personally express the debt of gratitude that I owe to members of the committee and the sub-committees, who contributed their skills and talents to our work over the past Session, and to those who continue to do so in this one. Alongside them I add the names of their admirable and expert staff, to whom we are very grateful.

The committee’s role is to scrutinise EU policies and proposed EU laws, seeking to influence their development, to hold the Government to account for their actions in and connected to the EU, and to represent the House in its dealings with the EU institutions, other member states and their national parliaments. Many will know that the bulk of that work is done by six sub-committees.

The Select Committee itself and its sub-committees have undertaken an extraordinary level of work this year. We have scrutinised more than 250 EU documents and proposals, and corresponded at length with Ministers in order to examine the Government’s position and to put forward the committee’s own view. We have published 14 substantive reports on a diverse range of topics. While our primary task is to inform the House as a whole, we also engage actively with the outside world. I was gratified that the Financial Times described the committee’s reports as,

“the sort of calm, balanced report that ought to inform public debate”.

The Select Committee itself regularly conducts one-off hearings with the Minister for Europe, as well as with other key figures. The committee’s main focus in the year in question was our inquiry into the role of national parliaments in the EU. We emphasised national parliaments as a vital source of democratic legitimacy across the EU and supported the case for greater co-operation between national parliaments and early engagement by them with the EU Commission and other European institutions, including the European Parliament, so as to maximise their joint influence.

I will not rehearse our arguments in detail since there will be a full debate on the report in due course. I welcome the fact that although the Government’s response was late, it has now been received and it appears extremely positive. We look forward to pressing on with our efforts to promote the role of national parliaments by a range of means in the coming months.

I turn now to the sub-committees. They have all undertaken a range of important work, but I have time only to highlight a few key points for each. The Economic and Financial Affairs sub-committee examined in detail the financial transaction tax proposal and genuine economic and monetary union and its implications for the UK, and published substantive reports on both policy areas. This sub-committee produced an innovative report on the euro area crisis, incorporating the outputs of a series of six-monthly mini-inquiries, by which they have followed the crisis blow by blow for two years. The sub-committee did excellent work in its scrutiny of the 2014 EU annual budget and of the European semester—the term for the cycle of economic and fiscal policy co-ordination within the EU—which all amounts to a wide range of other scrutiny work.

The Internal Markets, Infrastructure and Employment sub-committee undertook an important inquiry into the issue of youth unemployment in the EU. That is a pressing issue affecting the UK and all member states. Its report recognised that,

“the responsibility for dealing with youth unemployment rests primarily with Member States”,

and that the key measures to address the issue should be concentrated and implemented at national level. But it was a timely and considered contribution to an EU-wide issue that will require attention for a long time to come, sadly.

The Sub-Committee on External Affairs was typically busy, dealing with a wide range of issues on foreign affairs, development, defence and international trade. In particular, it conducted an exhaustive inquiry into the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership—TTIP—in prospect between the USA and the European Union. This report concluded that as,

“the most ambitious trade and investment pact ever attempted”,

TTIP could,

“set the template for a new generation of 21st century trade and investment agreements”.

We urge member states to promote the TTIP initiative and to address public concerns over the prospect of a deal. The United Kingdom Government should seek to explain how TTIP is relevant, not just to large multinational companies but to consumers and small businesses. TTIP negotiations continue and we will follow developments with interest.

The Sub-Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries, Environment and Energy undertook an inquiry into food waste prevention in the European Union, which attracted a significant and thoroughly well deserved amount of media and public attention. This report called for greater collaboration and shared financial responsibility along the supply chain so that, for example, retailers work more closely with farmers and consumers to reduce food waste. It also called for the Government and the European Commission to assess how the redistribution of unsold food for human consumption might be encouraged through appropriate fiscal incentives. The report’s impact is only just beginning to be felt but it will, we are sure, continue to inform and influence public debate.

The Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee presented a reasoned opinion challenging the proposal to establish the European Public Prosecutor’s Office on grounds of subsidiarity. This opinion was agreed by the House on 28 October last year. The committee considered that the EPPO, as proposed by the Commission, would create,

“a very significant and disruptive incursion into the sensitive criminal law systems of the Member States”.

The sub-committee continues to examine the impact the EPPO will have on the United Kingdom.

The sub-committee also conducted a joint follow-up inquiry with the Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee on the UK’s block opt-out decision relating to pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. This issue was debated last week on the Floor of the House and will be revisited again before the final decision is made by the Government. Both sub-committees maintain a keen interest in this.

Separately, the Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee examined the strategic guidelines for the European Union’s next justice and home affairs programme, concluding that,

“evaluation must be at the heart of the next programme”,

and recommending reviews of,

“efficacy, transposition and implementation of all existing JHA legislation”.

The committee urged that,

“robust mechanisms must be put in place to review any future legislation or activities”.

This inquiry is a clear demonstration of the technical and considered contribution that the committee is in a position to make and in which it leads the debate, for which it is held in such high regard in Europe.

At this point I record personally my particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, who chaired the home affairs sub-committee so authoritatively. I welcome and look forward to working with his successor, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar.

The work of the European Union Committee and its sub-committees depends on the necessary information being provided in a timely manner by Her Majesty’s Government in accordance with their obligations to Parliament. I have to give one bit of good news, which is that the provision of this information has noticeably improved and the number of scrutiny overrides continues to fall. However, the quality of the explanatory memoranda can still vary across departments. This element of inconsistency can cause issues for the work of the committees if it raises more questions than it is meant to answer. Explanatory memoranda have a duty to explain.

Our committees also continue to make a significant contribution to interparliamentary relations and work. Some of the work is undertaken through the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union, known by the not particularly easy acronym as COSAC. It is certainly not a perfect institution and it does have issues that need to be addressed, but it provides the best framework for formal interparliamentary co-operation. Meanwhile, and less formally, our excellent national parliament representative in Brussels provides help to colleagues and other Members of the House to build effective relationships with other national parliaments and parliamentarians. We have increasingly close relations with like-minded members of committees in a number of other national parliaments. We benefit from a strong working relationship with the chair of the European Scrutiny Committee in another place as well as with those of the devolved Administrations. We meet formally twice a year and informally far more often.

To conclude, the pace of work has not dropped off. The sub-committees are looking forward and launching inquiries into topics such as regulatory reform, the use of civilian drones, the relationship between Russia and the EU, regional maritime strategy, the Government’s policy in opting into international agreements in the area of freedom, security and justice and, finally, an alcohol strategy. A short and very timely report on European Union data protection law, the so-called “right to be forgotten”, will be published next week. At the same time, our regular scrutiny work continues week on week. There is also a significant amount of institutional change in the European Union—a change of face and perhaps a change of style—and we will seek to build on our relationships with the institutions and individuals over the coming Session.

This House is known for keeping an eye on the small print, and that meticulous approach is never more apparent than in the way the committee tackles European Union affairs. We seek at all times, and I think we generally succeed, without closed minds and without complacency, to act in a non-partisan way and to give, as we are required to, well informed and neutral advice to the House on European Union matters. It is not always easy for us to perform and to communicate that vital function, and frankly it will not become any easier as we approach the 2015 election and whatever lies beyond, but I take great pride in heading this team of European Union committees. With those comments, I commend to the House our report on the work of the 2013-14 Session.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hooper (Con)]

My Lords, as another new member of the European Union Committee, I have listened with interest to the contributions to this debate, in particular to that of the other new boy, my noble friend Lord Caithness. After all, it is necessary not only to hold the Government and European Union institutions to account, but to account for our own work. This annual report—and the debate—do that very well.

Although I may be new to the main EU Committee, I previously served as a member of Sub-Committee A and now enjoy all the work on Sub-Committee B. I well remember, too, as a Member of the first directly elected European Parliament way back in the early 1980s, that House of Lords reports were—even then—referred to and quoted. That was done not just by British Members but by German, Italian and French Members, too, in spite of the fact that the reports are not—as far as I am aware—translated into any other language.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

We do consider in the Select Committee—there will be occasions when we are producing another report—whether to make translations available. If it is appropriate, we do not close our mind to doing so.

[Baroness Hooper]

I was not aware of that. The fact that the House of Lords European Union Committee reports are so widely respected and referred to is due to their being well researched and clearly written. Although I struggled at times with the technicalities and detail of financial and banking regulation when I served on EU Sub-Committee A under the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, the reports, when published, made it all comprehensible. We are fortunate in having excellent and high-calibre staff, and their work contributes to that as well.

I recently attended a meeting of COSAC, to which the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, referred at the outset. That, together with the committee’s report on the role of national parliaments, has confirmed my view that to understand the thinking behind a number of the proposals that come out of Brussels and the procedures that they advocate, it is necessary for us all to understand each other’s systems and procedures. It is not only the fact that a common-law approach to legislation is different from the civil law approach, which applies in most other EU countries; it is that here in the UK, in our parliamentary democracy, we are used to the Prime Minister and all Ministers being Members of Parliament and therefore immediately and regularly accountable to Parliament. That is different from a presidential system where the President and his appointed Ministers may rarely attend their parliament, assemblée or congress.

The European Parliament is based more on the presidential system, with the Council of Ministers taking the role of President, than on ours. I fear that many commentators and press reports do not understand that or take it into account. It is therefore necessary to have regular contact and communication between members of national parliaments so that we are aware of those differences and can find a way to make progress in spite of them. Parliaments are, after all, ever-changing bodies and so those contacts must be kept up to renew and update the message regularly.

Having said that, it is of the utmost importance to understand and maintain contact with the European Parliament itself, particularly with British MEPs, again so that we realise why they go about things in a different way. That is especially important at this moment in the aftermath of the European elections and the appointment of a new Commission. We need to work with them to achieve the best possible results not only for our own population but for the whole of Europe.

That is my message for today. I am delighted to add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, as chairman of the Select Committee, and support his Motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate and I am grateful to my noble friends and colleagues for their contributions and their very friendly personal remarks, which were much appreciated. I am also grateful to the Minister, as he has outed himself as a former chairman of our home affairs sub-committee. We already know where he comes from, but he reflected that in his thoughtful response.

I wish to pick up two points that the Minister made. The first one is in relation to yellow cards. I would not for a moment caricature his line of argument as saying that we ought to have yet another performance table on the number of yellow cards tendered by any particular chamber of the 41 across the European Union, although, of course, COSAC does keep a score of that. However, I can give him the news, if he was not previously aware of it, that we have gone a stage further this week, not formally by actually tendering but by indicating our readiness to tender a red card, in our sense of the word, in relation to what we feel is an inordinate breach of the subsidiarity principle regarding occupational pensions, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain. We will, if necessary, see the Commission in court on that matter. Machinery has been devised and there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the various parties but I think that the suit would probably be brought in the name of your Lordships’ House, if it was minded to do so. However, that is ongoing. Of course, the intention is to try to force a further discussion on the matter rather than to take it to court.

The Minister also mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Hill, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bach. Even as we speak, I am, as they say, warming up to sign a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Hill. It will be very much on the basis the Minister indicated. This is not a confirmation hearing—we are not seeking that—but it would be to establish, and then to develop, a continuing relationship. The only gloss I put on that—and it is not purely for the record—is that, of course, all Commissioners have a duty to the European Union and all Commissioners will be very welcome as and when they are available in London or via electronic means. We shall seek to tap into their expertise and interests, as we have done in the recent past with a somewhat uneven result, although in certain cases that was very helpful.

In relation to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on the question of freedom of movement, my weekend reading will comprise looking very carefully at that particular balance of competences review, the articulation of the evidence and the conclusions of that. As a committee, we have sought not to conduct a running commentary on the balance of competences but we look at the details when they are issued and we may well want to take further steps. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that we did indeed hold a pre-Council session with the Minister for Europe, David Lidington. I should make it clear to the House that that was an on-the-record public evidence session, as is all our work unless it is specifically to the contrary. It will also have occurred to your Lordships that that took place at a very fraught moment in the Council’s deliberation. Nevertheless, we felt that it was a marked success and it is one that we would seek to repeat on a future occasion. That issue may surface again when the substantive debate takes place on our report on the national parliaments, which is where the recommendation was derived from.

I am very conscious of the lateness of the hour. I add only that we were given a tremendous structure 40 years ago. That has led to a building-up of experience but it does not lead to either complacency or stasis. We will continue to move forward and take new interest in the developing pattern of the European Union and its challenges and we will be ready to serve your Lordships’ House by looking into those when it is appropriate. I do not want to test your Lordships’ patience by prolonging my remarks further. In that spirit, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate.

Motion agreed.

European Union Committee: 2012-13 (EUC Report)

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on its work in 2012–13 (1st Report, HL Paper 15).

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, this Motion invites the House to take note of the report of your Lordships’ European Union Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, on that committee’s work in the 2012-13 Session. I am pleased that this round-up of our committee’s important work has been given valuable time on the Floor of the House as its work has been recognised, not least by Sir Jon Cunliffe, the present UK permanent representative to the EU, as,

“enormously influential in Brussels and on Government thinking”.

I recognise that many in the Chamber today are very familiar with our work, but we are anxious to encourage a wider understanding of it among all Members of the House. For the benefit of those who are perhaps less au fait with it, I shall summarise the Committee’s role. It scrutinises EU policies and proposed EU laws, seeking to influence their development; holds Her Majesty’s Government to account for their actions in, and connected to, the EU; and represents the House in its dealings with the EU institutions, and other member states and their national parliaments. Much of this work is carried out by the six EU sub-committees, and we will be hearing from a representative of each sub-committee during the course of this afternoon’s debate.

I will mention a few highlights from this past Session, but before doing so I wish to pay tribute to the sub-committees’ hard work and meticulous efforts. A rigorous approach to detail is what this House is well known for and we apply that principle to the scrutiny of EU affairs. We seek at all times, and I hope that normally we succeed, to act in a non-party-political way to advise the House neutrally on EU matters. Given the current rather fetid political climate, it is essential that we continue in that vein, and I have no doubt that we will continue to rise to that challenge. I am deeply and genuinely grateful to each of the chairmen, the members of all the committees and, by no means least, the expert staff team that supports them so ably.

My committee and its sub-committees have undertaken an extraordinary level of work this year. We have scrutinised over 270 EU documents and proposals, sent 653 letters to Ministers examining the Government’s position and putting forward the committee’s own views, heard from over 210 witnesses in person, considered around 270 pieces of written evidence and published 16 reports—all this at a time when, in accordance with the House’s wishes, we have reconfigured our sub-committee system.

I shall now mention a few of the most significant pieces of work we have done during the Session. The Select Committee itself regularly conducts one-off hearings with the Minister for Europe regarding the outcomes of European Council meetings. During the 2012-13 Session there were three such hearings, covering topics as diverse as the G20 growth and jobs action programme, the situation in Mali and the EU’s neighbourhood policy. In addition, we followed up our inquiry into the multiannual financial framework and conducted and completed a new inquiry into the future of European Union enlargement. That report emphasised the importance of enlargement to securing stability and economic prosperity for the European Union itself and its neighbourhood. It analysed the way in which the enlargement process was conducted by the Commission and the Council, and made recommendations about how to make the process more transparent and better understood by European citizens.

I turn to the sub-committees. The Economic and Financial Affairs Sub-Committee has carried out a range of important work but I want to highlight two aspects. First, it has conducted regular evidence sessions following up on the euro area crisis report of 2012, which highlighted concerns about the future of the euro area, raised further questions about the desirability and efficacy of eurobonds and set out how the democratic legitimacy of solutions to the crisis could be ensured. Secondly, the sub-committee undertook a significant piece of work considering the consequences for the United Kingdom of proposals for a European banking union, as well as, of course, other work.

The Sub-Committee on Internal Market, Infrastructure and Employment undertook a timely inquiry into a proposal to set Europe-wide gender quotas for company boards. The committee urged the Commission to bring forward a system for monitoring the numbers of women in senior positions, but warned against quotas as they failed to address the root causes of inequality. It further questioned the Commission’s assertion that national measures to improve gender balance on boards were not working and, following a debate in the House, a reasoned opinion was issued raising concerns about subsidiarity.

The External Affairs Sub-Committee continued to operate at considerable pace, dealing with a wide range of proposals on foreign affairs, development, defence and international trade. During the Session it conducted an inquiry into the EU’s External Action Service, the EEAS, which concluded that the service had been successful in a number of areas, such as developing a comprehensive approach to countries and regions like the Horn of Africa and the Sahel, and in calming the relations between Serbia and Kosovo. However, the committee also highlighted challenges for the EEAS.

The Sub-Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries, Environment and Energy undertook a noteworthy inquiry considering whether the EU’s energy policy met, and would continue to meet, Europe’s basic requirements for energy. The committee expressed some alarm at the uncertainty, complacency and inertia surrounding the need to secure an affordable supply of low-carbon energy, and highlighted concerns about where the necessary investment in energy infrastructure could be found. This report, like several others that I have mentioned, received considerable press interest, but the unreported, perhaps seemingly unexciting yet essential and detailed work of our committees is also vital to ensure that the Government are properly held to account and that Parliament is well informed about EU matters.

The Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection Sub-Committee completed a high-profile inquiry into fraud against the EU budget. The inquiry report highlighted that the European Union’s antifraud system had a number of weaknesses and that the Commission’s estimates of the cost of fraud to the EU budget in its annual reports were significant underestimates. That sub-committee also undertook an important piece of work in an innovative partnership with the Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee regarding the block opt-out decision under Protocol 36, which has been the subject of great debate recently in the House. The report of this inquiry has been recognised as a dispassionate, sound analytical tool to aid the Government and Parliament in forming views on the desirability of the opt-out.

Separately, the Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee examined the operation of the Commission’s global approach to migration and mobility, GAMM, and the implications of the UK’s partial participation in the European Union’s asylum and immigration policies. The committee concluded that the control of immigration from third countries was rightly the responsibility of individual member states, but that a co-ordinated approach by the European Union and its member states was imperative. The committee called for the GAMM to take a more focused approach in future and for the Commission to have a more prominent role internationally, particularly in forums such as the Global Forum on Migration and Development.

Noble Lords will no doubt wish to focus on the work of each sub-committee in greater detail but I want to record again my thanks to the sub-committee chairmen and members, and in particular to thank the noble Lords, Lord Teverson, Lord Carter of Coles and Lord Bowness, the outgoing chairmen of sub-committees C, D and E respectively, and welcome the new chairmen of those committees—the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Corston.

The work of our committee and its sub-committees depends on the necessary information being provided in a timely manner by the Government, in accordance with its obligations. Although several departments produce excellent Explanatory Memoranda well within agreed deadlines, I regret that Her Majesty’s Treasury has repeatedly fallen short of the expected level of openness and helpfulness to Parliament—a matter which I am, once again, pursuing with Ministers. In addition, we are disappointed to have observed a gradual decline in the quality of the Explanatory Memorandums being produced by a range of departments. To quote one of my own straplines, an Explanatory Memorandum is not much use if it does not explain itself. We do all we can to support departments, and so we should, and yet we can only carry out our role effectively if given the right tools. I have no wish to be pompous but I do need to be firm about it. Despite the current pressures on civil service departments, the necessary resources must be given to these tasks as European Union matters affect the people, business and other organisations of this country in many different ways. In any case, as a matter of principle, government departments should meet the obligations into which they have entered.

Our committees continue to make significant contributions to interparliamentary conferences and work. I am most grateful for the work of COSAC—the Conference of Parliamentary Committees for Union Affairs of Parliaments of the European Union. It is not the easiest acronym and not always the easiest organisation but it is one which I think is beginning to feel its feet. COSAC meets twice a year in plenary form and is a crucial, if little known, formal mechanism for interparliamentary co-operation.

Furthermore, we continue to benefit enormously from good links with the chairs of the EU scrutiny committees in the other place and the devolved Administrations, not least through our twice-yearly EC-UK meetings. There are also regular tripartite meetings bringing together members of our committee, the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place, and United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament. We met twice during the 2012-13 Session. These meetings raise important issues and allow for an exchange of views and understanding of each other’s work that might otherwise be lacking. Finally, our excellent EU liaison officer and the National Parliament Office provide a valuable link to Brussels and help to build effective relationships with other national parliaments and parliamentarians.

To conclude, what does the current Session hold? As usual, we will be engaging with a wide range of issues in inquiries—including, at Select Committee level, the role of national Parliaments in the European Union, and, among the sub-committees, youth unemployment, genuine economic and monetary union, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, and the continuing discussion about the block opt-out—while maintaining our routine scrutiny function.

At a time of ongoing discussions about the European Union and the United Kingdom’s future relationship with it, it is even more important than ever that the House retains its ability to understand, impartially examine, challenge and influence the European policies of Her Majesty’s Government, and the development of European Union policy and law across the whole union. The family of EU committees, which I have the honour to head, is an important mechanism for that, and I commend this report of its work in the Session 2012-13 to the House. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, given my position as the concluding speaker in the debate, I very much hope that it will not be a matter of the theme, “Apres moi le deluge”. We are all about to go on our holidays and I do not intend to prolong the agony. However, I would like to say first how much I appreciate the contribution of all those who have participated in the debate and the Minister’s response. I am particularly grateful to those who have expressed very generous—even if unmerited—remarks to me personally. Before the cynics get at it, perhaps I should say, by no prior arrangement, that I would like in turn to express my gratitude to all the sub-committee chairs and former members of our committee—including the Minister, as he reminded us—who have participated in this debate. It has shown the depth of expertise that the House can deploy and, in what I hope will be a golden summer of England cricket, that we can bat all the way down the order with great success.

If I were to select a single word to encapsulate the nature of our discussion, and probably the way in which our committees work, it would be workmanlike—but not, I hope, pedestrian. We do a proper job of work. We do it seriously but we try to have regard to the wider context as we do it. In a way, that has been brought out by the debate, because we have shown a constant tension between concern about procedural issues and substantive issues. Perhaps I may select in particular the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who felt strongly about both. I think we all understand that there is a European people out there, not all of whom are very happy with the course of events and who feel tensions about how the system is not necessarily expressing their views as it should.

There is also concern as to whether we are having the right dialogue with Her Majesty’s Government and the right degree of compliance with the scrutiny reserves and the other obligations that they have undertaken. I remind the House that it is entirely for the Government to meet their obligations. We will do our best to help and we do not wish to be unreasonable. It really is not sufficiently good enough, on their behalf, to say, “Well, we did our best”, when clearly in certain cases that has not happened. We will not go away from that issue, nor should we do so.

However, I would reflect that there is a danger—we see this even in some of the material that we get, for example, from the European Parliament commenting on our involvement in European affairs—that because we have a documents-heavy and scrutiny-intense activity, there is a feeling that somehow that is all that we do. Of course it is not the case that everything is done formally by the process of scrutiny, holding things under scrutiny or even grumbling about the conduct of Her Majesty’s Government. There is a much more numinous process of policy formulation and discussion.

Perhaps I may come to points of substance. First, there is a certain regret in my heart that no explicitly Eurosceptic contribution has been made today. As I have said on previous occasions, any discussion of European policy matters is not a binary one where everyone immediately agrees or disagrees to the suggestion you have made after your detailed inquiry. It is very much more a process of evolving. One of our important roles, which I think has been touched on, involves our ability to go further back in the decision-making process and to respond as the Commission has a bright idea or wishes to develop themes, and not simply to wait until the last minute when we can say, “We are not happy with this as it’s turned out”, “It raises a subsidiarity issue”, or whatever.

Another point raised—for which we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, as we are for others—is that it is now a very complex process. As for his comments on the contribution of the electronic dialogue, although I can e-mail my colleagues in COSAC, for example, which is the sort of thing we should be doing more than we do, that might not be the answer to every situation. We do not simply have a central authoritarian system to which we have to respond rather late in the day, we also need to be involved in a much more networked policy formulation and discussion.

In that context, yes, of course we want our dialogue, and yes, we are not complacent about having got it perfectly right—I say in response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—just because Jacques Delors, the European Commission or the current Commissioners have our reports on their shelves. We can always do better. I am sensitive also to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, about migration issues. Indeed, I hope that the House will not land everything with even the remotest relevance to Europe on our shores. However, we do have a dialogue. Two of our sub-committees have looked at some of the issues and we have corresponded about them. We are open to doing more in this respect just as we are open to doing more on procedural issues.

I hope that I can assure your Lordships’ House that we do our best to do an objective job. We do not have closed minds about how it should work. We do some things that do not always appear even in the tomes of annual reports. In the context of our national parliamentary inquiry, I have written well over 100 letters to various people, including national parliaments and ambassadors in London and otherwise, to alert them to what we are doing and to invite them actively to participate. We will take any part in the dialogue that they are prepared to have with us.

In conclusion, I should like to express my gratitude for the way in which our report has been received and to emphasise that, whatever we do in the future, we will be guarded by the lodestars of quality and objectivity. We will make no compromises about that.

Motion agreed.

The Future of EU Enlargement

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

To move that this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on The Future of EU Enlargement (10th Report, Session 2012-13, HL Paper 129).

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

This Motion invites the House to take note of the report of your Lordships’ European Union Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, on the subject of the future of European Union enlargement. I am conscious that the comparatively late start to these proceedings may have led to some attenuation of the speakers list and, possibly, compression of the debate. Nevertheless, I am pleased that this debate is so timely, given the immediate accession of Croatia as the 28th member of the European Union; the first accession to the rotating presidency by Lithuania since its accession in 2004; and the imminence of the possibility of discussion about future accession and enlargement at the upcoming European Council later this week. This is a very timely occasion.

The European Union has a long history of enlargement. Our country was part of the first and what is still the largest wave of enlargement when we joined what was then known as the European Community at the same time as the Irish Republic and Denmark in 1973. Since then, there has been a steady stream of countries seeking to join the European Union. We are now about to embark on our seventh enlargement with Croatia. There are currently five candidate countries and three potential candidate countries, so the enlargement agenda shows no sign of halting.

Our report considered the process by which aspirant countries moved towards readiness for membership. In doing so, we revisited many of the questions asked in our previous 2006 report, The Further Enlargement of the EU: Threat or Opportunity?. With the benefit of the passage of time and the benefit of hindsight, we reflected on lessons learnt from the 2004 and 2007 enlargements.

I also express my gratitude to all the witnesses who gave evidence to the inquiry, particularly those from countries which have recently joined and those which are on track to join the Union now. It almost goes without saying that we drew immensely on the expertise of our staff in drawing up this report.

Enlargement is formally a reactive process. It is for individual countries to apply to become member states. However, the Union has always had an enlargement agenda, because enlargement is an integral lever for development and has been accepted as such both in the founding and successive treaties. The current agenda has two main drivers: the first, safeguarding stability and security within wider Europe; and the second, achieving economic prosperity and growth. I believe those two objectives to be intimately connected. Historically, enlargement has had a transformative power. I would evidence that by the political changes seen in recent years in what are now comparatively older member states such as Spain, Portugal and Greece. Furthermore, we should remember that the single market is of enormous benefit to all members—new ones and existing ones, too.

The euro area crisis and questions about the role and governance of the Union have led to enlargement slipping down the political agenda. It has been suggested that some countries, such as Germany and France, may have lost sight of its importance. The United Kingdom Government are to be commended for their commitment to enlargement, and we share the view of many of our witnesses that the momentum in this vital work must not be lost.

The Copenhagen criteria of the EU set out three key standards that a candidate country must meet to be eligible for membership: political, economic and the ability to take on the obligations of membership. Although these were devised in anticipation of central and eastern European enlargement, we were persuaded that they still represent the right starting points for any future enlargements. In acknowledging this, we were critical of the Union’s failure to apply the criteria rigorously in the cases of Romania and Bulgaria, which meant that on joining they were not at a point where they could meet the full obligations of membership. This, in turn, led to the creation of somewhat unsatisfactory post-accession instruments. The Copenhagen criteria are helpful and should not be weakened.

The road to accession for candidate countries is, rightly, not just the warm political one; it also involves significant legal, technical and administrative work. The first step of the official enlargement process is an application for membership. After granting official candidate status, the European Council must take a unanimous decision to open formal membership negotiations. A candidate country then conducts negotiations with Ministers and ambassadors of the Union Governments regarding the European Union’s body of secondary legislation—the so-called acquis communautaire. There are 35 chapters of the acquis, such as justice, freedom and security, judiciary and fundamental rights, and freedom of movement for workers. Necessary reforms must be implemented and demonstrated, and we support the rigorous approach to this that has recently been shown. The requirements made of countries have continued to grow and, while this is justified, the Union must take care to ensure that the burden of work it places on candidate countries is not insurmountable—criteria should be strictly necessary, taken in good faith, and should be consistently applied across the board.

I do not wish to dwell on events in any particular country, but I would say that experience shows that we have far greater influence over our near neighbours and candidate countries when it is clear that together, as a Union, we are serious about enlargement and serious about conditionality—that is, that real reforms are followed by concrete progress in the accession process and that there are also consequences when there is any regression. Yesterday, at a European conference in Dublin, we heard from Valentin Inzko, the high representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina, about the importance of developing in that country a political culture of tolerance and compromise. With his great experience, the high representative was very clear about the importance of that conditionality.

The Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance seeks to provide financial support for aspirant countries’ reforms. We were disappointed to note the many instances of failure to convert funds from commitments to actual spending, and so we recommended that the next IPA should focus more on the strategic aims of the enlargement policy and the needs of candidate countries. Furthermore, a more rigorous approach must be taken to any backsliding over reform, with the Union being willing to slow or halt the enlargement process and turn off the funding tap. If I may express a personal view slightly beyond the remit of our report, I am increasingly attracted to the option of offering western Balkan countries in particular an opportunity to work together on what might be termed self-help projects to which an appropriate degree of challenge money could be made available by the Commission, with the countries themselves being the generators for this process.

The Union must learn some tough lessons regarding the resolution of issues between countries. The entry of Cyprus in 2004 without reconciliation or conclusion between its Greek and Turkish populations has led to a continuing entrenched dispute. That has diminished the Union’s leverage in encouraging both sides to reach a settlement. It is distressing and it is difficult to see the best way to handle disputes such as this. On the one hand, using Cyprus as an example again, resolving the dispute was rightly not a condition of joining the Union, otherwise Turkey would simply have gained a veto over its membership. On the other hand, without a resolution having been found, Turkey’s accession process has itself become more challenging. The Union must strive to find a way to keep disputes between countries from slowing down or halting the enlargement process altogether, while also encouraging practical solutions. There are a number of very substantial disputes that must be resolved before the accession of the current aspirant countries. I welcome the plan for normalisation of relations between Serbia and Kosovo, which has been agreed under the auspices of the High Representative and Member of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland. This has opened the way for both Serbia and Kosovo to move forward along the road to eventual membership.

I have already touched on the political and economic advantages of enlargement. In spite of the economic crisis, the new member states from 2004 and 2007 have seen rapid economic growth after joining. Similarly, compliance with the requirements of accession means that political and, indeed, business landscapes are often changed for the better, with a healthier balance of power between domestic parties and an increased role for opposition parties being fairly common features in new member states.

The benefits of enlargement are also two-way between old and new member states: the Union is better equipped to deal with its neighbours, and existing member states see economic benefits from the expansion of the number of consumers in the single market. United Kingdom exports to central and eastern European countries almost trebled between 2001 and 2011, reaching close to £14 billion in 2011. I am sure other Members will want to speak in greater detail about the risks to certain policy areas represented by enlargement but I shall, for now, limit myself to suggesting that it should be possible to overcome such issues and they should not be seen to deter, let alone to act as a bar, to any future enlargement.

Debates about enlargement and the future of the Union more generally, often tend to focus on a perception that free movement of labour might prove a risk to domestic labour markets. We heard compelling evidence that this was not the case and that migrant workers had often filled gaps in the labour markets of older member states that were otherwise unfilled by nationals. However, it would be remiss not to acknowledge that there have been some negative impacts from the free movement of persons. For example, the relocation of businesses to exploit cheaper labour costs may have impacted on member states economically, and there is undoubtedly a risk of non-workers travelling to receive social security benefits. However, the free movement of workers is a treaty right and an important element of the European Union’s internal market. Member states need to communicate generally the many advantages to their populations and to work collectively to address any genuine concerns that remain within the existing policy frameworks and within those broad objectives.

Turning to the future of the enlargement process, it is right that the Union should have a rigorous process for the admission of candidate countries, not least to ensure that necessary reforms are introduced and entrenched. The eastern partnership countries must undertake significant reforms before they can be considered for candidacy, but equally their desire to be considered should not be forgotten in discussions about future enlargement. I hope that the eastern partnership summit to be held in Lithuania in November is helpful in this respect. We recognise that there is some reticence regarding future enlargement, and we recommend, frankly, that the Commission and national Governments together do a better job of explaining its benefits and warning of the costs of non-enlargement. It is not a cost-free exercise to remain with the status quo.

In conclusion, the Union has a long history of supporting enlargement. One could almost argue that it is within the DNA of the Union to promote enlargement. That is the process that we in the UK have long been associated with and from which we have benefited. Lessons must be learnt from recent experiences, but the current economic crisis and debates about the future role of the EU should not distract us from this important enlargement agenda. The future economic and political stability of Europe in many ways depends on it and it is an intimate part of that process. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I simply remind noble Lords that the advisory speaking time for this debate is eight minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, at this late hour, it would perhaps suffice if I were to comment on the quality and absorbing nature of this debate, and on the remarkable staying power displayed by my colleagues on the Select Committee and others who have participated in it.

However, I think that I should take just a moment further than that to reflect on the fact that, while there are always differences of emphasis and occasionally of substance, generally there has been what I would describe—I include in this both Front Benches and the other contributions—as a steely consensus behind getting on with this job and a belief that it is possible, not in a spirit of recrimination or rehashing the past, to learn lessons and get on with the next stage of enlargement. That I find very encouraging.

It would be inappropriate to comment on each speech, but perhaps I may break from that and refer just for a moment to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. He has made a distinguished contribution tonight but I should like, in particular, to reflect on the fact that he has recently left the chair of our External Affairs Sub-Committee, which he served with great distinction. That has in no sense been diminished tonight and we are very grateful for his contributions both tonight and on earlier occasions.

It is generally the case that, in this House at least, matters connected with the European Union are treated seriously, sensibly and constructively. I think that we have generally met those obligations. Equally, there is a sense of diffidence or restraint because we know that this is not an area in which the United Kingdom would expect to take unilateral action or where we should expect magic solutions immediately. We need to continue to work patiently with other member states and with our friends who see this agenda as important. I should perhaps have recorded that we need to continue what has been a very constructive dialogue with Commissioner Füle and his Cabinet and other members of the Commission who are also committed to these objectives. We need to keep the process very much at the forefront of our attention. I think that what we have done in our report—I add modestly—is at least to set the climate for doing that and to point to the opportunities and benefits of doing so.

Motion agreed.

European Union Committee Report

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on its work in 2010 (1st Report, HL Paper 13).

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, today’s Motion invites us to consider the committee’s report on its work during the long 2010-12 Session of Parliament. The committee has produced regular reports on its work since 2003 but this is the first time for many years that we have invited the House to debate one. During that Session, the committee was of course under the expert chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and I am delighted to see him here today. I pay tribute to his excellent leadership. It is also gratifying to see so many other Members of the committee here. It enables me to thank them and also our excellent committee staff for their hard work.

Effective parliamentary scrutiny of EU matters must not be the preserve of a small number of specialists. We must spread it among active Members of the House. In that spirit, I feel that we are building on a strong base but we should always be ready to examine how we can do things better. I hope that today’s debate will range widely and that Members will feel free to address recent developments in the European Union. I also hope that this Committee will look forward and consider how the House as a whole and the committee appointed by the House to examine EU matters can most effectively scrutinise it. That scrutiny of the EU is one of the core activities of our House. European Union legislation affects the people, businesses and other organisations of this country in many different ways. Whatever view one may take about the desirability of this—there are differing views in your Lordships’ House and on our committees—it is nevertheless crucial for the United Kingdom Parliament to play a full and effective part in this scrutiny.

During the two-year Session in question, around 1,800 European documents were deposited in Parliament. Of these, the chairman of the committee referred over 700 either to the Select Committee or one of the then seven sub-committees for close examination. In the course of examining these 700 items, the committee sent over 1,200 letters to Ministers. The committee has produced 34 full reports, ranging from major cross-cutting issues such as the single market and the euro area crisis on the one hand to more specific policies, such as the mobility of healthcare professionals in the EU and the EU drugs strategy, and foreign policy matters such as the European Union and the situation in Sudan. The aim of all this work is for the family of House of Lords European Union committees to play their part in parliamentary scrutiny of these matters by influencing and holding to account the United Kingdom Government; influencing and scrutinising the European Commission and other institutions, such as the European Parliament; engaging with stakeholders at home and abroad; and informing the House of Lords as a whole and contributing to a wider public debate about important European Union policies.

I hope that the scrutiny process is extremely open. It certainly benefits greatly from the input of people and organisations affected by the policies that we examine. In preparing our reports on this Session, we sought out evidence from around 400 people and organisations in writing and from more than 300 witnesses in person, so in this short speech I can give only a broad overview of the Committee’s work. I hope that others, who are in good numbers here, can give further specific examples in support.

I would like, however, to draw out two examples of effective working. First, on a very specific issue: at a meeting in September the Minister for Europe explained that the committee’s 2011 report on the EU police mission in Afghanistan, which highlighted the need to focus on gender issues and human rights, to encourage the recruitment and training of female officers and to invest in literacy, had been accepted by Her Majesty’s Government and the Commission and followed up by the Afghan Government. Secondly, on the major and multifaceted policy of the multiannual financial framework, whose outcome is not yet determined, the Select Committee co-ordinated two major inquiries into that framework for 2014 to 2020. It of course sounds highly technical and even a bit rebarbative, but at heart this is about our taxpayers’ money that the European Union intends to spend over the next seven years and how it intends to fund that spending. At a time of austerity, yet in the light of the critical need to support economic growth, the next framework will be the most important of all.

The committee took advantage of the expertise residing in each sub-committee and made a comprehensive analysis of the Commission’s initial proposals. We broadly supported the United Kingdom Government’s call for much greater restraint than the Commission proposed but we also called for greater attention to the quality of spending, with proportionately more directed towards programmes that offered potential to support economic growth and less towards agricultural maintenance. We also noted that the British rebate remains justified while spending is so skewed towards agricultural support.

Our work on the MFF demonstrates some good examples of our committees engaging effectively with others. We launched the report in April 2011 with a seminar hosted by the Centre for European Policy Studies, at which my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Roper, talked through our findings with a range of stakeholders including some from overseas. He was subsequently invited to act as a rapporteur at a mini-convention on the MFF convened by the Polish presidency, the Commission and the European Parliament last November. This demonstrates well that, although the MFF is only now making headlines in United Kingdom newspapers, the House has been involved throughout and played an important role in the debate that shaped the policies and is still being listened to.

Debates on the committee’s reports enable all Members of the House, whether or not they are members of a European Union committee, to engage with important policies. The committee helps the House as a whole to a greater understanding and engagement on European matters. Like all serious work in Parliament, it is sometimes a challenge to get our messages across through the media. However, as the report notes, in the first week of May 2012 the committee published three major reports, which were the subject of 19 articles in national and regional papers, over 20 reports in online and specialist media, and coverage in the broadcast media. More recently, the topical report on women on boards was covered in international media, including the New York Times.

A new feature is that the Lisbon treaty has given specific duties to national Parliaments particularly to examine legislative proposals for proportionality, and whether they comply with the principle of subsidiarity. If at least one-third of national Parliaments issue a reasoned opinion that a principle does not comply with subsidiarity, a yellow card is triggered, which requires the Commission to reconsider its proposal. During the 2010-12 Session, the House of Lords, acting on reports by the European Union Committee, issued two reasoned opinions, although in neither case was a yellow card triggered. However, in this September, we learn that the subsidiarity check by national Parliaments could have a definite impact on European legislation. A yellow card was then triggered on a proposal on balancing the right of free movement and a right to strike, and the Commission has now withdrawn it.

The Commission is making strides in improving its dealings with national Parliaments, and I have been impressed with Maros Sefcovic, who is the responsible commissioner. We are, however, working to improve the timeliness and level of detail that the Commission provides in response to concerns raised by national Parliaments. There is a general appetite for greater intensity of activity in that area.

At the end of this long Session, the House decided to reduce the number of EU sub-committees from seven to six. This was decided before the House appointed me to the chairmanship. Many Members of the House regret that decision. For my part, I understand the pressures on the House and on other committees, and I do not currently propose to reopen this matter, although we will of course keep it under review in the light of our workload.

Looking ahead, I would like first shamelessly to plug the Select Committee’s current inquiry into the further enlargement of the European Union. The committee is examining whether the Union should continue to expand and, if so, what principles should underpin that expansion and how they should be translated into action. What effect will the long economic crisis have on the prospects? The committee intends to publish its report before the end of the session.

I turn to the role of the Government in facilitating effective Parliamentary scrutiny of EU matters. The scrutiny reserve resolution, by which the Government undertake not to agree to proposals in the Council of Ministers unless their scrutiny by the European Union Committee has been completed is an important element of this. From July 2011 to June 2012 there were 87 overrides of scrutiny. For our part, the committee will try to avoid unnecessary overrides. But, for their part, all departments must provide us with information quickly and fully and allow us to carry out our scrutiny work effectively before proposals come up for decision within the Council. Government as a whole must be firm not to allow itself to be railroaded into premature agreement to proposals without allowing proper time for parliamentary scrutiny.

Over the summer the committee, and our counterpart committee in the Commons, became embroiled in an entirely unnecessary row with the Government about whether a report from President Van Rompuy about further economic and monetary union should be deposited in Parliament for scrutiny. It was deposited, after a short delay, and I hope that the Government have learnt their lesson and fully accept that their role is to facilitate rather than inhibit effective parliamentary scrutiny.

Scrutinising European documents provides a good starting point, but we must make sure that we do not become document-obsessed. Appointing subject-specialist sub-committees is a good way to ensure that the House acquires and makes use of the existing expertise in key European Union subjects, ensuring that it does not over-fixate on this or that document and at the same time is nimble enough to contribute to major policy debates at an early stage. Recently, the Internal Market, Infrastructure and Employment Sub-Committee investigated the issue of quotas for women on boards—I have already mentioned media coverage of that—and was able to produce a detailed report on the matter before the Commission had even managed to agree on its own proposal. In what I suspect is a record for the House, the report was debated two working days after it was published.

My priorities for the committees themselves are as follows. We must ensure that we engage as effectively as possible beyond the confines of the committees: with the broader House; with stakeholders; with the media and the general public; and with the major EU institutions such as the Commission and the European Parliament. We must doggedly pursue the major policy issues, in particular by following up our key policy reports. European policies often develop slowly, and our subject-specialist committees give us a unique ability to engage with them consistently, over a period of years. We must continue to work hard on our external communications. In recent years, we have held seminars and stakeholder events. Only last week there was a well attended seminar on the new European External Action Service. I hope that we will continue this work in future sessions.

Over the years, the House has built a strong reputation in other parts of the Union for its EU scrutiny work. Shortly after my appointment, I visited Brussels for introductory meetings and was struck by the high level of awareness of what we do. When meeting Vice-President Sefcovic I even noticed a copy of the report we are debating now on his desk. I have also represented this committee at COSAC, the conference of EU committees of national Parliaments. Our reputation there is high and, because of this, I think that there is something of an open door to advancing our levels of engagement further.

I have said that the work of the committee is transparent. However, it is not easy for people with an interest in a particular European Union policy to find all the relevant documents: the proposal itself, the United Kingdom Government’s memorandum and any comments by the scrutiny committee. I hope that we can come together to find a technical solution to permit much easier and better searching of all the material relating to EU matters, which is currently spread widely across the web.

The Session on which we are reporting finished on 1 May. Our report was published at the start of June, but we are only now debating it. Although I am of course grateful for this slot in Grand Committee, it is not quite what one would call “prime time”, particularly when there are European Statements in the Chamber itself. Reports by Select Committees sometimes have to wait longer to be debated, and we need to do some hard thinking about how this can be better organised.

We also need to think how we can encourage as many non-committee members as possible to speak in debates. We want to make sure that our work engages the interest of all Members of the House and is intelligible to them. Equally, we must work the system to facilitate and encourage participation in debates.

In conclusion, I suggest that, at a time of uncertainty and change in Europe, it is more important than ever that this House retains its ability, assisted by the European Union Committee, which now reports, to understand, examine, challenge and influence the European policies of Her Majesty’s Government and the development of European Union policy and law across the whole Union. In that spirit, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, very briefly in view of the hour, I thank all those who have participated in the debate, including the Minister for his closing comments, and also those Peers who are not members of our committee but have managed to sit in and imbibe some of the interest in what we are doing.

It seems that there are five potential pitfalls, which I will list briefly. First, there is the danger of excessive expectation and that we should think that somehow a single report we make will change the map irredeemably in Europe. It does not usually work like that in a community of 27. Secondly, there is what one might call a kind of arrogant assertion of power. We are not running British foreign policy and should not seek to do so. Thirdly, we should be alert to any producer capture by HMG or anybody else. We retain our independence and will express our views as appropriate. Fourthly, there is the possibility that we will disappear down a mire of detail, though I see no sign of that happening. The detail deployed in this debate has been impressive and very much to the point.

Finally in the dangers is the question of resourcing, which cuts across three areas. First, there is the suggestion the Minister made about international collaboration. We have to find the resources if we are to do that. Secondly, there is what we might be able to contribute to the balance of competences review. Thirdly, there was the universal call across the debate for greater attention to our outreach and publicity. A lot of that can be done electronically and relatively thriftily and economically, but it cannot be done for nothing. However, I take that as the single strongest message that we should be doing it.

In conclusion, we should carry on doing what we have to do but ever more thoroughly and do it further back upstream and further down into implementation. Secondly, we should pay particular attention to making sure that all our stakeholders—of all walks of life, home and abroad, government and otherwise—know what we are doing and feel able to be part of our processes.

Motion agreed.

Terezin Declaration: Holocaust Era Assets

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has so eloquently introduced this short debate on the restitution of property in claims arising from the Holocaust. The House will probably be aware that I have no direct interest in this matter, having neither Jewish faith nor heritage, but partly because of that position of disinterest I have involved myself over the years in a number of issues concerning anti-Semitism. Sadly, because of the diffuse nature of that discourse, one suspects that issues of that old evil tend to return, even in cases where, as the noble Baroness has reminded us, it is not simply Jewish property but other property that has been looted.

It could be argued that the wicked legacy of Nazism is not just the Holocaust, with the slaughter of 6 million Jews and other minorities who were not acceptable to the Hitler Government. It is of course never easy, and perhaps may not be tasteful, to put in the same frame crimes against people and crimes against property, but the Nazi era saw not jut mass slaughter but also mass confiscation. It is never possible to restore lives which have been lost or lives which have been spoiled for ever by the suffering that has been endured. However, it is possible to make some amends, however inadequate, for property which has been looted.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and as direct memories and survivors of the Holocaust have passed from the scene, we are beginning to take an interest, or renew and intensify our interest, in these property issues. We know now that there is looted property in many countries—whether documented or not and whether under the control of the official authorities or other communities—which could in principle still be restored to the families of those from whom it was taken, whether they are Jewish or gentile. It is our duty in the modern world, if we claim to be based on liberal and modern values, to discharge this commitment.

Of course, survivors may be poor and they and often their families of that generation are bound to be frail, but, frankly, there is not very much time for our courts and bureaucracies to make acts of restitution in accordance with, for example, the Council of Europe resolution which bears directly on this for all member states. The noble Baroness reminded the House that in 2009 Britain signed the Terezin declaration, which reflected this new interest, passion and sense of urgency in getting the matter dealt with. Britain has acted on it and so, too, have other states which are in one sense perhaps more intimately concerned with this matter. Austria, for example, has set a standard of good practice. Others, frankly, have been more dilatory. I joined the noble Baroness and others recently in making representations to the Polish ambassador. We had a constructive, but not wholly satisfactory, discussion. I believe that that country—which did, of course, attend the Terezin conference—needs to do more than simply rely on individuals pursuing their own cases through the courts, elderly as many of them are. In a country with, sadly, so many property claims—by no means all of them arising from Jewish backgrounds—they need to provide for the systematic availability of their archives and for an office to pursue collective claims and, if possible, bring them to a conclusion.

We, in turn, as co-signatories to the Terezin declaration, need to undertake our own obligations. This is a matter of closure; it is a matter by which we can at least slightly mitigate one of the most disastrous chapters in history.

Anti-Semitism

Lord Boswell of Aynho Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Grand Committee

Asked By

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to tackle anti-Semitism and what assessment they have made of the success of the cross-government working group on anti-Semitism.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, some noble Lords may be aware that in another place I participated in the all-party inquiry on anti-Semitism which sat in 2005 and reported in 2006. I should make it clear that I did so neither as a member of the Jewish faith nor as a Member of Parliament who had then taken much interest in, or at least shown overt commitment to, the political affairs of the Middle East. It would be fair to say that that degree of detachment was not confined to me; among the 14 members of the committee there was that general pattern. It informed the nature—I hope dispassionate nature—of the conclusions of our work.

I should begin with a confession to the Committee. After waiting six months for this debate, I booked the date when offered it without realising that it fell on the Jewish festival of Shavuot, which has precluded a number of noble Lords who are religiously observant, including the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, from participation. All I can say in mitigation is that I still felt that it was right in the circumstances to proceed because these issues needed airing. I also realised that if I could be so careless in my respect for others when I trusted my motivation was impeccable, how easy it is for us to neglect cross-cultural issues and the sensitivities that there are; and how easy also it is, for example, for a university academic, who might be less benignly disposed, to overlook the legitimate claims of Jewish or other students in the setting of exam dates and somehow finding that they coincided with a religious festival and created difficulties for the students. We all need to sharpen our act, and I shall be one of those. My overwhelming message to the Committee is that we need to be alert in these issues.

Beyond the strict remit of my Question, I do not feel that any views that Members may have on the Middle East situation or on the position of the Israeli Government—and I do have some of my own—should in any sense condone issues around anti-Semitism, although they are often used as a proxy.

Our concern here should primarily be with our domestic situation within the United Kingdom. This is rightly the concern of Members across the House. It is also important, and perhaps a useful piece of symbolism, that I speak as a Christian. My noble friend the Minister happens to be a Muslim and there will be others who participate who may have no act of faith at the moment. And so it should be. We should all engage on issues of intolerance involving our Jewish population because such acts and attitudes tarnish and diminish our society as a whole—and, of course, they are easily transferrable, in one nexus of intolerance, from one community to another, and that is intolerable too.

I am a member of the British delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I should early on in the debate draw the Committee’s attention to a worrying upward trend in anti-Semitism internationally. As with our own British situation, this may from time to time burst out overtly into the public gaze. I remember going past synagogues in Vienna and seeing the police guard and so on and finding it depressing.

I am concerned equally by the Holocaust deniers, who tend to be rather noisy, and by what I might call the anti-Semitism deniers, who tend to be less open about it. We in Britain, at least in our Committee’s work, were honest enough to confess to our problems, but I become concerned when I hear other countries deny that contemporary problems exist or perhaps define them as merely extensive with those who happen to hold views that are critical of the Israeli political system or policies. With perhaps the exception of Germany because of its own ghastly history, accepted by nearly all those in responsible positions in Germany, too many other European countries turned a blind eye to pressure on their resident Jewish populations. This is perhaps partly because those populations—sadly, but it needs saying—have been reduced by the Holocaust, and they are now often by no means the largest faith minority. Nor in many cases do they have direct political clout.

I turn now to the specific issues raised in our 2006 inquiry and the government response. I have to say that there is much to celebrate and commend here. Under both the previous Government and the current coalition Government there has been a determined and positive response at both ministerial and official level. This has spanned a wide range of government departments, through the cross-government working group, and has drawn in partners from the agencies of the Jewish community. This dialogue has already led to three successive government responses, reporting to parliamentarians of all kinds in the light of that inquiry. One benefit of the occasion is to be seen when you revisit the latest White Paper that came out last December; for a government document it is, dare I say, quite a meaty response, with a lot of facts in it as to what has been achieved and what still needs to be achieved. Parliamentarians across the House and in the other place have maintained focus on that area and, in certain cases—and I include myself in relation to Holland—have taken the example of our work to a number of other Parliaments. This culminated in the first international conference on the subject in London, in February 2009.

I shall now comment briefly on a number of outstanding issues. First, hate crime itself—and these are crimes, whether they are attacks on individuals, buildings or cemeteries—continues in Britain at historically high levels. However, there is now better public articulation of the policing and other issues around them, and there is valuable co-operation with the community support trusts. Having as part of our inquiry visited a Jewish school in a Paris suburb which had been burnt out before we were there—and which, I found to my distress, was burnt out again after we visited—I welcome the money that the present Government have been able to find for school security. I hope that that will continue. It is appropriate at this point to mention, in difficult times, the money that the Government have recently made available to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation—a good international lead.

Secondly, we know that there is an outstanding issue in higher education. I am sure that others will want to comment on this. As a former Minister in that field myself, I cannot remain silent. Universities are one of our glories, and they flourish through the pursuit of light and liberty. We can never be content for them to act as agents for academic boycotts or the denial of free speech on any reasonable or sensible arrangements, let alone the fostering or condoning of violent attacks. Of course, I know that most academics would take exactly the same view as I do. Very valuable work is being actioned through the Equality Challenge Unit and the vice-chancellors themselves, but there are still cases where individual Jewish academics are targeted, and Jewish students may feel chilled or deterred from attending particular institutions. Universities have a public sector equality duty, and they should follow it.

At a more demotic level, I welcome the work of community leaders such as Gary Lineker and what is being done in sport. There is identification of some clubs with the Jewish population, not just in Britain, and we need role models. Political parties also have a job to discharge at election time, and to criticise those who do not.

To summarise, I hope that, as a result of our work, parliamentarians and the Government are now engaged in an integrated approach to pushing intolerance in this country to the margins where it deserves to be. There cannot be any complacency or let-up in the process of reviewing this and there is no amnesia for the lessons of the Holocaust. Old hatreds may be buried but they have not gone forever. Our task is to create opportunities to tackle specific abuses while setting a moral tone which is wholly intolerant to extremism. We need to express respect for individuals and to meet their problems but, above all, we need to be ready at any time to take a stand on this.