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.