Deputy Chairmen of Committees
Debate between Lord Boswell of Aynho and Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, the House will be delighted to hear that I shall spare your Lordships my usual intervention to protest at the continuing largely Europhile composition of our proposed EU Committee. However, perhaps I may ask the Chairman of Committees whether he agrees that your Lordships’ House should limit the number of sub-committees under this committee. There have been as many as six in the past. As Brussels pays so little attention to their deliberations—and that is putting it politely—should we not start to limit their number? Before we accept this Motion, I suggest that, at the very least, we limit the European Committee to two sub-committees. Would that not free up valuable resource to set up more ad hoc committees, at which your Lordships excel with all your gathered wisdom, and which are so appreciated by the British people?
Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)
My Lords, before the Chairman of Committees replies, perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. He will perhaps have anticipated that I was half-anticipating a contribution from him; it is, indeed, a seasonal necessity. It will perhaps be helpful to Members of the House, under whose remit we have the honour to serve, if I briefly comment on the state of play within the general framework. The noble Lord’s restraint today in terms of the personalities involved on the substantive committee was admirable but he has questioned the number of sub-committees. Frankly, I am not ashamed of the work that is done by my sub-committees through my main committee. There will be an opportunity for that to be debated in public in due course, and I hope that the noble Lord will join us in doing so. But in terms of the overall remit, I would suggest, if nothing else, that this is not the moment to change our substantive arrangements, although we may well wish to reappraise them in the future. We are well aware of the risks and opportunities presented by the upcoming referendum. At the very end of the last Session, we considered a paper prepared by our clerks indicating work that our committee could do when the result was known.
The structure of our committee and our scrutiny model have served us well since they were adopted in the 1970s. Indeed, I have the first report within yards of my desk, and the structure is substantially unchanged. Despite the noble Lord’s feelings, I hope that we have built up a reputation for diligent scrutiny and for evidence-based, balanced and thoughtful inquiries. We get a steady stream of visitors from across Europe asking what we do, why we do it and the conclusions we have reached. The committee is clear already that we should use the opportunity presented by the referendum to undertake a fundamental and challenging review of our scrutiny model. If people vote to leave the EU, it is self-evident that fundamental change will be inevitable. We would need to ensure proper parliamentary oversight of the withdrawal negotiations and the terms of any new relationship with the European Union. As long as we remain in the European Union, possibly for several years, we will need to maintain a continuing scrutiny function. If, on the other hand, the electorate vote to remain, we are minded to use the opportunity to launch a thorough review of our scrutiny model.
The European Union has changed almost out of recognition since we joined in the 1970s. It is a Union of 28, rather than nine, member states, with a directly elected European Parliament which acts as a co-legislator in the majority of cases. The United Kingdom has also changed with the creation of devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and their associated parliamentary Assemblies or Parliaments. We need to ask whether a system of document-based scrutiny devised in a pre-internet age is still appropriate. Clearly, the European Union continues, and will continue, to exercise a profound influence on the UK, and it is right that the House should devote proper resource to its scrutiny. I hope that our work is helpful to the House as a whole. But as a committee we are determined to move with the times and ensure that our resource is not wasted but is used as effectively as possible, whatever happens in the referendum.
It happens that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has not participated in debates on our reports in recent times, to my memory. He has confined himself to criticising the committee in the media, alongside his traditional and, I am sure, welcome contributions on occasions such as this. I regret that he has not done more. However 23 June turns out, we will need collectively to pull together, as a society and indeed as a House, to heal wounds and to move forward. I sincerely hope that once the referendum is out of the way, he will work with us in reflecting collectively on how, in a changed world, this House can most effectively perform its vital and, I think, continuing task. I hope that is helpful. We are conscious of his sensitivity and we hope to be helpful to the House as a whole.
European Union Committee
Debate between Lord Boswell of Aynho and Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, on the last point made by the Chairman of Committees, I understand that in fact the change to the common fisheries policy came from a television series by Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall that was very hard-hitting.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, and in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Bowness. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that if these EU committees are critical of things that are going on in the EU, it does not seem to make any difference. I do have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that from 1992 to 1996 I did in fact serve on your Lordships’ European Union Select Committee and I even employed a young man who is now an eminent Member of the other place to wade through the papers for me so that when I went to the committee meetings I could see the bits that had been outlined in yellow and concentrate on them. Over the whole of the four or five years that I served on the Select Committee, I have to say that I did not see through it—I did not see that it was a waste of time—and I regret that.
As to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I can answer that by saying that virtually no yellow card has made any difference whatever, and of course it will not. As to the red card, it really will not be much use unless we are able to repeal legislation that has already gone through instead of just looking at new legislation as it comes gushing forth.
I have to repeat that since 1996 some 55 votes have been forced in the Council of Ministers by the United Kingdom Government and they have lost every one of them. That is quite a telling point and casts doubt on the position not only of our Select Committees but of the Government themselves. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, did not contribute to the debate because I was hoping that he could reassure your Lordships that the scrutiny reserve is now occasionally respected by the Government—
Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I would invite him to exercise a degree of patience for a week or two, when once again we will be presenting the annual report of my committee—and, by inference, that of its sub-committees—for the attention of the House. He will then, as he has in the past, have the opportunity to debate the report. I hope very much that on this occasion he will engage with it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his most helpful contribution and I look forward to the result.
Of course I am not going to press this to a vote. All I can say is that I hope that our debate has done something to rectify the situation for the next Session of Parliament. Again, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Gender Balance among Non-Executive Directors (EUC Report)
Debate between Lord Boswell of Aynho and Lord Pearson of Rannoch(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, in moving this Motion I invite the House to agree with the proposal of the European Union Committee that a reasoned opinion should be issued. Our report concerns a proposal for an EU directive on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures. This proposal was examined in great detail by our sub-committee on the internal market, infrastructure and employment, which is chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain. I should make it clear, first, that we are very grateful to her. Secondly, while I am moving these Motions that relate to subsidiarity, I will be looking to her to answer any detailed points about the underlying policy issues, for her committee has heard the evidence. I have merely had the opportunity of studying it.
Before I explain our thinking on this proposal I want to make it absolutely clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that we fully support the aim of increasing gender diversity on boards. There is no backtracking on that. Having studied the report of the debate on a related Motion in the House of Commons earlier this week I was delighted to see that Her Majesty’s Government were of the same mind. In this debate it would be helpful if the Minister could respond by giving us an update on the current position in relation to women’s participation on boards and also, in particular, on Her Majesty’s Government’s initiatives in taking this further forward. I sense that the House is absolutely at one on the strategic objective.
Equally we applaud the achievement of the European Commission Vice-President, Viviane Reding, in bringing this issue to the forefront of political debate in Europe. However, our report is about whether the Commission’s proposal is the right way to respond to this important issue and we have come to the conclusion that it is not. Our view is that the Commission’s proposal is inconsistent with the principle of subsidiarity.
We are frankly not persuaded by the Commission’s suggestion that a figure of 40% should be imposed in order to ensure a so-called critical mass of women on boards in member states where boards are traditionally smaller. The proposal fails to take into account the rate of change and the board structures within each member state, and does not adequately make the case that measures taken at national level are not working. In the UK in just over a year and a half, from February 2011 to November 2012, the proportion of FTSE 100 board members who are female went up by 4.8% and by 4.2% in the case of FTSE 250 board members. There have been concomitant improvements in a significant number of other European member states, though not in all.
A key test under the subsidiarity principle within the Lisbon treaty is whether the European Union can add value. The Commission suggests that its proposal is necessary for the practical and competitive functioning of the internal market. We feel that this justification is weak when balanced against the administrative burdens of the proposal and the varying cultural contexts and practices within differing member states.
As I mentioned earlier the European Union Select Committee, which I have the honour to chair, fully supports the aim of increasing gender diversity on boards. I have a personal interest in this subject and can echo my own support of it. We believe that the European Commission can still usefully complement this by monitoring individual member states’ action and in cases where individual member states fail to comply with their general, pre-existing obligations to combat discrimination the Commission should then consider further action. However, it remains our view that the European Union-wide legislative action at the present time would be unnecessary and could be counterproductive to the Commission’s aim of increasing gender diversity on boards. Action at the member-state level to address these issues would be more effective. We therefore believe that the proposal is inconsistent with the principle of subsidiarity. Under the treaty, we as Members of Parliament have an obligation to consider that and to issue an opinion accordingly if that is our view. In that spirit and context, I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, I am a strong supporter of women on boards but I offer only qualified congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and to his committee on opposing their imposition on our boards by Brussels. Of course, it is all that we as a national Parliament can do—but we must not make the mistake of thinking that somehow we are taking part in anything resembling a worthwhile democratic process.
The report put its finger on what has always been the fundamental flaw in the whole fraud of subsidiarity. It has always applied only to those areas of our national life that are not already controlled by Brussels. It has never been applicable to the single market and so to commerce and industry, agriculture, fishing, foreign trade and much else. Under the Lisbon treaty, a democratic fig-leaf was delicately placed on this unseemly state of affairs by introducing the procedure that we are using tonight. The transparently unsatisfactory nature of that fig-leaf can be found in Protocol 2 of the treaty, on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. It is worth quoting from that protocol to show just how pointless this whole exercise is.
Article 7 of the protocol states:
“Where reasoned opinions on a draft legislative act’s non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least one third of all the votes allocated to the national Parliaments … the draft must be reviewed … After such review, the Commission”—
or, where appropriate, other proposers of legislation—
“may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft. Reasons must be given for this decision … Furthermore, under the ordinary legislative procedure”—
that is, qualified majority voting—
“where reasoned opinions on the non-compliance of a proposal for a legislative act with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least a simple majority of the votes allocated to the national Parliaments … the proposal must be reviewed. After such review, the Commission may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the proposal”.
I will not bore noble Lords further. The treaty goes on to say that in the final crunch, you need 55% of the members of the Council or a majority of the votes cast in the European Parliament before you can stop the Commission doing what it wants.
That is how democratically weak this whole procedure is. If the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, does not agree, will he tell me how many Commission proposals have been withdrawn under the procedure that we are now using? What hope does he hold out for this one? In other words, have we got on our side at least one-third of all the votes allocated to national Parliaments? Will the Commission even have to review this proposal, never mind whether there is any chance of seeing it fall?
I hope that we succeed, because I strongly support the presence of women in the boardroom. However, their presence should be a matter for shareholders, perhaps with a little gentle persuasion from national Governments. It should not be just one more morsel of national sovereignty devoured by the corrupt octopus. To that extent, I support the noble Lord’s Motion and look forward to his answers.